Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals

Dave Cramer

On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 18:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> > I feel like I've said this many times already, but I really do not
> > understand why there's such a hesitation on bumping the minor protocol
> > version. Bumping the minor protocol version has zero downsides to me.
>
> I think you have that backwards. The right way to think about it
> is that bumping the minor version has zero upside. What we actually
> want is for the client and server to agree on what specific optional
> features they will use, and we have a design that allows doing that
> in a fine-grained, extensible way. We don't need to change the
> protocol version number ever again, as long as we use protocol
> options correctly.
>

I would argue in the case of "cursor with hold" this should have been in
the original protocol.
This is not an added feature this just enables an existing feature in the
server. This is not unlike widening the cancel key.
Something like encryption would be a feature that I could see using the
extension mechanism

>
> Having said that, I share Robert's distaste for "silent" protocol
> bumps that change the behavior without any negotiation.
>
My understanding reading his message he was in favour of it

As for proxies or "middleboxes" I will concede that not advertising that we
are going to change that message is a non-starter

Dave