On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Now if we had a track record showing that we could tweak the protocol
>> version without causing problems, it'd be fine with me to do it for this
>> usage. But we don't, and this particular case doesn't seem like the
>> place to start.
>
> And, btw, a moment's study of the protocol version checking code in
> postmaster.c shows that bumping the minor version number to 3.1 *would*
> break things: a client requesting 3.1 from a current postmaster would
> get a failure.
Given that, it seems that there is far more downside than upside to
this particular change, and we shouldn't do it. Accordingly, I'm
going to mark the open item "raise protocol version number" closed.
> Maybe we oughta change that logic --- it's not clear to me that there's
> any meaningful difference between major and minor numbers given the
> current postmaster behavior.
I don't think this would be a bad thing to do if we're fairly clear
that it's correct and won't break anything, but I don't think it's
worth delaying beta for, so I propose not to add it to the open items
list unless someone else feels otherwise.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
