| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq: Bump protocol version to version 3.2 at least until the first/second beta |
| Date: | 2025-10-31 16:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+mKtB2V-8P7viTZDmWT0DXAz_NMYa38DjDDdE1LX_LMxQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 6:56 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> Depending on how this works in practice we'll likely still want to
> revert this change before we actually release PG19. If we do that before
> 19beta1 we still have roughly half a year where people will test the
> ecosystem.
I think the whole plan probably belongs in the user documentation.
Even if no one were to read it, I still wouldn't want the declaration
that "we default to the latest" to be mixed into the growing search
engine slop pile.
Is there an even stronger way for us to grease this? For example,
could we agree that no one will ever implement 0003.7FFF and push that
during the beta, failing if anyone gives us an unsupported version?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-10-31 16:40:03 | Re: LISTEN/NOTIFY bug: VACUUM sets frozenxid past a xid in async queue |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-10-31 16:15:28 | Re: Fully documenting the design of nbtree row comparison scan keys |