Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Backend protocol wanted features - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Kevin Wooten
Subject Re: Backend protocol wanted features
Date
Msg-id 81475DE4-9D34-40FC-9D2F-7BEABA5ED885@me.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Backend protocol wanted features  (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>)
Responses Re: Backend protocol wanted features  (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc
Tree view
That was the point of my opt-in suggestion (set schema_notifications=true). Then you aren’t changing anything for clients that work currently.  

Alternatively you could wrap it all into a new protocol and just use a “set protocol_version=4”, or even better, push the protocol version in the startup parameters.

On Dec 29, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:

Well we would be adding messages that current protocol handlers may not know how to deal with which will likely require them to rewrite their code. That being said it would be easier to define a new protocol, even if it is just an extension and then older clients can still deal with the current protocol, and newer clients can request the newer protocol.




On 29 December 2015 at 16:19, Kevin Wooten <kdubb@me.com> wrote:
Ok well if you define as new protocol as any change, regardless of backwards compatibility, then yes.  I would define a “new protocol” as something that has breaking changes with a previous version or at the very least a known deviation from existing behavior.

Extending the protocol with some “well-defined” notifications (using the system that is already well-defined) is not something I would consider a new protocol.

I guess like you suggested we’re talking about the semantics of a “3.1” versus “4.0”.  I’m looking for mostly “3.1” type of stuff.

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So maybe they all are fairly easily implementable in the current protocol?
>
> New messages => new protocol.
>
> For instance "schema_notification" message need to be well-defined,
> thus it deserves its own entry in the protocol documentation.
> Doesn't it?
> Vladimir



--
Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc


pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: Backend protocol wanted features
Next
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: Backend protocol wanted features