On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're
> > > willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least
> > > resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol
> > > revisions in the past: the backend will be able to handle both old and
> > > new protocols (so it can talk to old clients) but libpq would be revised
> > > to speak only the new protocol (so new/recompiled clients couldn't talk
> > > to old backends). We've gotten away with this approach in the past, but
> > > the last time was release 6.4. I fully expect to hear more complaints
> > > now.
> >
> > Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you
> > have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers
> > anyway ...
>
> Actually, it is usually the opposite, where old clients can talk to
> newer servers, but not the reverse.
D'oh, mis-read Tom's ... you are correct, and it does make sense to do so
... its not like old libraries aren't available if someone wanted to make
a pre-compiled version that is 'backwards compatible' ...