> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> But, we've had protocol changes before that breaks backward
> >> compatibility...why is this all of a sudden a problem?
>
> > No reason to change the protocol when we don't need to.
What I meant is that there is reason to break compatibility when we
don't need to. Magnus seems like he has addressed this already.
>
> The point is that we *do not have to* break backwards compatibility to
> add this feature, and indeed hardly anything would be gained by breaking
> compatibility. See subsequent messages from myself and Magnus.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
