Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 17:17, Jacob Champion
<jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, I'd hoped that you and Jelte would maybe hash out your
> differences in opinion a bit before I jumped back in. You think
> extensions are orthogonal -- seemingly negating the primary advantage
> cited for regular minor bumps? -- but Jelte is optimizing for
> interrelated features.

I had a quick discord chat with Dave. And we don't disagree much with
each other: We both would like to use a version bump for these kinds
of very simple to implement features.

For an important part because we hope to do multiple of such small
changes in a single PG release, so the protocol can actually move
forward at a decent speed. Having a single version is only 1 option,
while having N protocol extensions a year gives at least N different
configurations (if they're all orthogonal, and at worst N*N).

In your first email you (Jacob) wrote this:
> I prefer protocol architectures that introduce separate
> extensions first, then periodically bundle the critical and
> highly-used extensions into a new minor version once they're sure that
> _everyone_ should support those things.

Dave and I both agree that if we create a protocol extension for every
tiny feature and then in 3 years include some of them in a protocol
bump, that's just a lot more complexity that every client author will
have to deal with in the long run.