Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Дата
Msg-id 1069.1301353018@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Ответы Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On sön, 2011-03-27 at 00:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but we haven't bumped the protocol version number since 7.4,
>> and so I have no faith that clients will behave sensibly

> So we will never change the minor protocol version, because we've never
> done it and don't know whether it works?

My feeling is we should leave it for a time when we have a protocol
change to make that's actually of interest to clients (and, therefore,
some benefit to them in return for any possible breakage).  The case for
doing it to benefit only walsender/walreceiver seems vanishingly thin to
me, because in practice those are going to be quite useless if you don't
have the same PG version installed at both ends anyway.

Now if we had a track record showing that we could tweak the protocol
version without causing problems, it'd be fine with me to do it for this
usage.  But we don't, and this particular case doesn't seem like the
place to start.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: hubert depesz lubaczewski
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Problem with streaming replication, backups, and recovery (9.0.x)
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Another swing at JSON