Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQSfKShO5qqzmEnYh_aqkpY5EJJq4RcmTVycmxcY=qqD-g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 16:02, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'm 100% convinced at this point that we're arguing about
> the wrong problem. Before, I didn't know for sure whether anyone would
> be mad if we redefined PQprotocolVersion(), but now I know that there
> is at least one person who will be, and that's Jacob.

I could be interpreting Jacob his response incorrectly, but my
understanding is that the type of protocol changes we would actually
do in this version bump, would determine if he's either mad or happy
that we redefined PQprotocolVersion.

> If there's one
> among regular -hackers posters, there are probably more. Since Jelte
> doesn't seem to want to produce the patch to add
> PQminorProtocolVersion(), I suggest that somebody else does that --
> Jacob, do you want to? -- and we commit that and move on.

Let's call it PQfullProtocolVersion and make it return 30002. I'm fine
with updating the patch. But I'll be unavailable for the next ~3
weeks.

> Then we can get down to the business of actually changing some stuff
> at the protocol level. IMHO, that's what should be scary and/or
> controversial here, and it's also imperative that if we're going to do
> it, we do it soon.

Agreed, but I don't think doing so is blocked on merging a
PQfullProtocolVersion libpq function.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Enable data checksums by default
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Introduce hash_search_with_hash_value() function