Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Either way, maintaining
> > support for 1.0 is important as not all of us use libpq and we need time
> > to catch up. Also we don't want to put barriers in the way of companies
> > like Openlink who seem willing to provide support for PostgreSQL in
> > commercial products.
>
> Yes, but there will be a month for people to get their third-part stuff
> changed, and the changes are pretty straight-forward. Having support
> for both in the backend/frontend is going to make that code more
> difficult.

I agree it will be easy enough for most of us, but may be less so for
companies that traditionally don't release often. Although I don't use
Openlink's software and can't comment on whether it's any good (or if
anybody actually uses it), I take it as a compliment to PostgreSQL that
a commercial organisation is willing to provide some support for it.
Not maintaining backwards compatibility for at least some time isn't
going to encourage them to continue that support.

Phil