| From: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jack Christensen <jack(at)jncsoftware(dot)com>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Paluch <mpaluch(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol |
| Date: | 2020-10-21 00:17:45 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HHJnDC_qO+M-5M5cBXpEBR0Ubb2xmTdj62aQygGGhv=_Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 20:09, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-10-20 18:55:41 -0500, Jack Christensen wrote:
> > Upthread someone posted a page pgjdbc detailing desired changes to the
> > backend protocol (
> >
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/blob/master/backend_protocol_v4_wanted_features.md
> ).
>
> A lot of the stuff on there seems way beyond what can be achieved in
> something incrementally added to the protocol. Fair enough in an article
> about "v4" of the protocol. But I don't think we are - nor should we be
> - talking about a full new protocol version here. Instead we are talking
> about extending the protocol, where the extensions are opt-in.
>
You are correct we are not talking about a whole new protocol, but why not ?
Seems to me we would have a lot more latitude to get it right if we didn't
have this limitation.
Dave
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-10-21 00:24:53 | Re: speed up unicode normalization quick check |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-10-21 00:09:13 | Re: dynamic result sets support in extended query protocol |