Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Дата
Msg-id CADK3HHLKgMS_FGXovX_nPaWMnN-nA-GgnfA9dS7xwDxMqSi75g@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers







Plus, you've got all of the consequences for non-core drivers, which
have to both add support for the new wire protocol - if they don't
want to seem outdated and eventually obsolete - and also test that
they're still compatible with all supported server versions.
Connection poolers have the same set of problems. The whole thing is
almost a hole with no bottom. Keeping up with core changes in this
area could become a massive undertaking for lots and lots of people,
some of whom may be the sole maintainer of some important driver that
now needs a whole bunch of work.

We already have this in many places. Headers or functions change and extensions have to fix their code. 
catalog changes force drivers to change their code. 
This argument blocks any improvement to the protocol. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect maintainers to keep up. 
We could make it easier by having a specific list for maintainers, but that doesn't change the work.



I'm not sure how much it improves things if we imagine adding feature
flags to the existing protocol versions, rather than whole new
protocol versions, but at least it cuts down on the assumption that
adopting new features is mandatory, and that such features are
cumulative. If a driver wants to support TDE but not protocol
parameters or protocol parameters but not TDE, who are we to say no?
If in supporting those things we bump the protocol version to 3.2, and
then 3.3 fixes a huge performance problem, are drivers going to be
required to add support for features they don't care about to get the
performance fixes? I see some benefit in bumping the protocol version
for major changes, or for changes that we have an important reason to
make mandatory, or to make previously-optional features for which
support has become in practical terms universal part of the base
feature set. But I'm very skeptical of the idea that we should just
handle as many things as possible via a protocol version bump. We've
been avoiding protocol version bumps like the plague since forever,
and swinging all the way to the other extreme doesn't sound like the
right idea to me.

+1 for not swinging too far here. But I don't think it should be a non starter.
Dave

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Regina Obe"
Дата:
Сообщение: RE: Can't compile PG 17 (master) from git under Msys2 autoconf
Следующее
От: 'Alvaro Herrera'
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Can't compile PG 17 (master) from git under Msys2 autoconf