Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable
Date
Msg-id 1318235405.31687.0.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On sön, 2011-10-09 at 11:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem with something like a protocol bump is that the coding
> required to make it happen (in the backend and libpq, that is) is only
> a small part of the total distributed cost. 

Why do we have major and minor protocol version numbers, which are
supposed to allow incremental addition of features to the protocol?
What other costs do you have in mind?




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Date:
Subject: Re: What is known about PostgreSQL HP-UX support?
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Collecting statistics on CSV file data