On 2025/06/13 13:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 8:05 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Therefore I see this as fixing an oversight in commit bba2fbc6238, so I'd
>>> like to commit the 0001 patch as well in v18. Thought?
>
>> You should get the concurrence of the RMT.
>> ...
>> Also, I was under the impression that updating relevant documentation for
>> a feature wasn't even subject to RMT review;
>
> FWIW, I agree with David's view of both of these points. RMT
> review of 0001 should be a formality here, but nonetheless
> we should adhere to process.
Agreed. Thanks to both of you for the comment!
I've added the RMT to CC. What do you think about including the 0001 patch in v18?
Would you be okay with that?
-----------------------
The 0001 patch changes \conninfo to report the full protocol version (e.g., 3.2)
instead of just the major version (e.g., 3). This is technically a behavior change,
but since protocol version 3.2 was introduced in v18, and both 3.0 and 3.2 are
now valid, always showing just "3" isn't very helpful. To see which protocol
version is actually in use, showing the full version is more informative.
Therefore I see this as fixing an oversight in commit bba2fbc6238, so I'd like to
commit the 0001 patch as well in v18. Thought?
-----------------------
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
