Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add%r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I don't care at all if J. Random Developer's homegrown code only works
> with the PG version he's using.  The concern I have is that unwanted
> server version dependencies will sneak into widely used code, like
> psql, or libpq, or jdbc.  Or another way of putting it: Robert's proposal
> is a protocol version break, just like most stuff at this level.  Trying
> to pretend it isn't doesn't make it not one.

Your argument here sounds suspiciously like "If we add a new feature
and people use it in a stupid way then it may cause their stuff not to
work".

Everything that worked before adding an option like _pq_.report
continues to work afterward.  Granted, if they try to use the option,
it will only work on versions that support that option, but that is
true of any new feature.  Furthermore, they will easily be able to
tell based on the reported server version whether or not their request
for different behavior was accepted by the server.  Therefore, if they
write their code well, there should be no danger of a client thinking
that they are getting behavior A while actually getting behavior B.
If we suppose that they write their code poorly, then there could well
be a problem, but drivers that contain bad code are fairly serious
problem with or without this feature.  It's not like checking the
server version to see whether it's new enough to know about
_pq_.report is rocket science.

I agree that my follow-on proposal of dropping GUC_REPORT for some
GUCs IS a protocol version break, and that may be a good reason to
reject that part of the proposal, or postpone it until we bump to 3.1
for some other reason.  Note that commit
ae65f6066dc3d19a55f4fdcd3b30003c5ad8dbed contemplates a specific
scheme for making servers that speak 3.1 and later backward-compatible
with existing clients that want 3.0, so any client that requests 3.1
can be assumed to be comfortable with all 3.1 behaviors.  Of course,
it's not like we've always been similarly careful in the past: you
yourself committed patches adding GUC_REPORT reporting to various GUCs
over the years, and if you worried about what impact that would have
on naive clients, the commit log does not record it, and we certainly
didn't bump the protocol version to account for it.

If you want an example of a much more serious protocol version break,
you don't have to look any further than the major features section of
the v10 release notes.  With SCRAM, we don't have to fall back on weak
arguments like "driver authors might use it wrong!" to see how things
get broken.  They're just wildly broken, and we don't care, because
SCRAM is a good feature. v10 also broke the replication sub-protocol
both by adding facilities for logical replication (which is arguably a
backward-compatible change) and by changing the format of hot standby
feedback messages (which isn't, unless we think clients ought to
ignore differences in the message length and just look at the initial
bytes, but I'm not sure we're particularly careful about extending
replication messages only at the end, so that sounds like a risky
strategy).

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company