| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: multi-backend psql |
| Date: | 2003-10-21 03:15:43 |
| Message-ID: | 3F94A4DF.5060707@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I suppose if all you want is backward compatibility which makes sense
> for pg_dump, but surely psql should be forward thinking.
>
> Normally it's old clients with new server, not the other way around --
> at least with big companies it seems easier to get a server upgraded
> than everyones desktop.
>
> Forward looking means pulling the available commands, queries, etc from
> the backend. It actually works quite well (submitted a patch quite a
> while ago) in all respects except string translation.
Hmmm...string translation really is the bugger, isn't it. I had only
planned to do backwards compatibility really...
It had occurred to me that we could move support for each version of the
backend into a shared lib.
eg. libpsql70.so, libpsql71.so, etc.
Then all we do is load the appropriate lib and call functions in it. To
support a newer version of postgres, you just need to drop in the latest
.so or something.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-21 03:16:14 | Re: So, are we going to bump catversion for beta5, or not? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-21 03:13:47 | Re: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ... |