Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Correct documentation for protocol version
Date: 2025-05-30 09:00:33
Message-ID: CAGECzQRaK8Vg_ova1sMwPugS6MW1tJZsnEpimAQTEkt62Ai+VQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 13:12, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Agreed that nobody upgrades a client from 2.0 but is there value in keeping the history ?

Yeah, maybe.

> Perhaps another section which would be "Changes in 3.x" ?

If we decide to keep it I think it would be best to have all protocol
changes on a single page. I'd just put the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 at
the bottom of the page.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrei Lepikhov 2025-05-30 09:22:31 Re: Proposal: Job Scheduler
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-05-30 08:49:50 Re: Replication slot is not able to sync up