| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Badrul Chowdhury <bachow(at)microsoft(dot)com>, Satyanarayana Narlapuram <Satyanarayana(dot)Narlapuram(at)microsoft(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) |
| Date: | 2017-10-04 11:54:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa69poRZmDiQKftFpz6QtSvfzYaqbMnct+99WOZgQRNdg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Badrul Chowdhury <bachow(at)microsoft(dot)com> writes:
>> 1. Pgwire protocol v3.0 with negotiation is called v3.1.
>> 2. There are 2 patches for the change: a BE-specific patch that will be backported and a FE-specific patch that is only for pg10 and above.
>
> TBH, anything that presupposes a backported change in the backend is
> broken by definition. We expect libpq to be able to connect to older
> servers, and that has to include servers that didn't get this memo.
>
> It would be all right for libpq to make a second connection attempt
> if its first one fails, as we did in the 2.0 -> 3.0 change.
Hmm, that's another approach, but I prefer the one advocated by Tom Lane.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30788.1498672033@sss.pgh.pa.us
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/24357.1498703265%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-04 11:58:19 | Re: Warnings in objectaddress.c |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-04 10:40:12 | Re: Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |