RE: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: LibpqPGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Badrul Chowdhury |
---|---|
Subject | RE: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: LibpqPGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) |
Date | |
Msg-id | BN6PR21MB07728666CC8B78871BF86BD4D1220@BN6PR21MB0772.namprd21.prod.outlook.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: LibpqPGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: LibpqPGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)
(Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
>> I spent a little more time looking at this patch today. I think that the patch >> should actually send NegotiateProtocolVersion when *either* the requested >> version is differs from the latest one we support *or* an unsupported protocol >> option is present. Otherwise, you only find out about unsupported protocol >> options if you also request a newer minor version, which isn't good, because it >> makes it hard to add new protocol options *without* bumping the protocol >> version. It makes sense from a maintainability point of view. >> Here's an updated version with that change and a proposed commit message. I have tested the new patch and it works great. The comments look good as well. Thanks, Badrul >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:12 PM >> To: Badrul Chowdhury <bachow@microsoft.com> >> Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Satyanarayana Narlapuram >> <Satyanarayana.Narlapuram@microsoft.com>; Craig Ringer >> <craig@2ndquadrant.com>; Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; Magnus >> Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>; PostgreSQL-development <pgsql- >> hackers@postgresql.org> >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq >> PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Badrul Chowdhury >> <bachow@microsoft.com> wrote: >> > Thank you for the comprehensive review! We are very much in the early >> stages of contributing to the PG community and we clearly have lots to learn, >> but we look forward to becoming proficient and active members of the pg >> community. >> > >> > Regarding the patch, I have tested it extensively by hand and it works great. >> >> I spent a little more time looking at this patch today. I think that the patch >> should actually send NegotiateProtocolVersion when *either* the requested >> version is differs from the latest one we support *or* an unsupported protocol >> option is present. Otherwise, you only find out about unsupported protocol >> options if you also request a newer minor version, which isn't good, because it >> makes it hard to add new protocol options *without* bumping the protocol >> version. >> >> Here's an updated version with that change and a proposed commit message. >> >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EnterpriseDB: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ent >> erprisedb.com&data=02%7C01%7Cbachow%40microsoft.com%7Ce37b69223 >> a144d1e5b7408d52c6d8171%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1 >> %7C0%7C636463771208784375&sdata=1%2FDylQIfS2rI2RwIVyZnDCUbzRQJe >> V4YM8J496QkpiQ%3D&reserved=0 >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgsql-hackers by date: