Re: Thoughts on a "global" client configuration?

Re: Robert Haas
> My theory is that they'll be even less impressed if they try to use a
> supposedly-compatible library and it breaks a bunch of stuff, but I
> wonder what Christoph Berg (cc'd) thinks.

It would also hinder adoption of PG in more places. There are
currently thousands of software products that link to libpq in some
form, and it would take several years to have them all fixed if
ABI/API compatibility were broken. Chasing the long tail there is
hard; we get to witness that every year with upstreams that aren't
compatible with PG18 yet. For some extensions, I'm still waiting to
get my PG17 (or PG16!) patches merged.

Christoph