On 29 June 2017 at 10:27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 29 June 2017 at 03:01, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It wouldn't be
>>> so bad if unrecognized parameters were just ignored; the client would
>>> know from the ServerProtocolVersion (or ParameterStatus) message that
>>> server had ignored those options and could respond as it saw fit.
>
>> Yeah. In retrospect it's a pity the key/value pairs don't come with
>> some kind of optional/required flag so the client can say "error if
>> you don't understand this, it's important" or "I don't care if you
>> don't understand this, and I'll notice when you fail to GUC_REPORT it
>> back to me". Or some convention like underscore-prefixing for
>> optional.
>
> Yeah. Back in the day I helped design the PNG image format, and one
> of the better ideas in it was to make a distinction between critical and
> noncritical chunks within a PNG file; that was exactly the idea you're
> getting at here. I agree with the suggestion to drive this off a
> parameter-name-based convention. Having leading underscore indicate
> a noncritical parameter sounds fine.
>
> I don't really like any of the ideas that have been mentioned that would
> introduce extra network round trips into session startup. It's expensive
> enough already. The only thing we seem to be really hurting on is the
> ability for the client to add extensions to the original StartupMessage,
> and this seems like it can fix that.
It does. But I don't see anywhere that extra round trips have been discussed.
-- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services