On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 3:17 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 23:48, Jacob Champion
> <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > That guarantee (if adopted) would also make it possible for my use
> > case to proceed correctly, since a libpq client can still speak 3.0
> > packets on the socket safely.
>
> Not necessarily (at least not how I defined it). If a protocol
> parameter has been configured (possibly done by default by libpq),
> then that might not be the case anymore. So, you'd also need to
> compare the current values of the protocol parameters to their
> expected value.
With your definition, I agree. But I was about to sneakily suggest
(muahaha) that if you want to go that route, maybe protocol extensions
need to provide their own forward compatibility statements. Whether
via the same mechanism, or with something like criticality.
> > But in that case, PQprotocolVersion
> > should keep returning 3, because there's an explicit reason to care
> > about the major version by itself.
>
> I agree that there's a reason to care about the major version then,
> but it might still be better to fail hard for people that care about
> protocol details.
Maybe? In the span of a couple of days we've gone from "minor versions
are actually major versions and we will break all intermediaries all
the time" to "maybe not, actually". It's difficult for me to reason
through things that quickly. And on some level, that's fine and
expected, if we're still at the debate-and-design stage.
But personally I'd hoped that most of the conversation around
something this disruptive would be about what's going to break and
what's not, with the goal of making the broken set as small as
possible in exchange for specific benefits. Instead it seems like use
cases are having to justify themselves to avoid being broken, which is
not really the stance I want to see from a protocol maintainer.
Especially not if your stated goal is to bump versions whenever we
want (which, just for the record, I do not agree with).
Put another way: we've seen that our protocol-version joint has rusted
[1, 2]. I agree that needs to be fixed. But I also believe that we
shouldn't try to smash the joint open with a hammer, and that belief
seems philosophically at odds with the approach being taken upthread.
So if I'm the only one who feels this way, please someone let me know
so I can bow out instead of throwing up roadblocks... I don't want to
be a distraction from incremental protocol improvements.
--Jacob
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_ossification
[2] https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/05/16/agility.html
