RE: psql \l error

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Yes,but shouldn't there be some guidelines around here ?
> > For example,maybe
> > The latest version of libpq should be able to replace older version
> > of libpq without re-compilation and be able to talk to all backends
> > after 6.4.
>
> As indeed it can...
>
> It could be that we should have invested additional effort to make psql
> able to execute all functions against both old and new backends, but
> it seems to me that we had more important work to do. There was
> relatively little complaint about the fact that 6.4 psql (and all other
> 6.4 libpq-based applications) were not able to talk *at all* to pre-6.4
> backends, so I'm surprised that we're discussing whether it's acceptable

I know it but I think it's only an evidence that PostgreSQL was used
neither widely nor critically at that time. As for me,I didn't consider
the production use of PostgreSQL at all at that time.
Now PostgreSQL is so much better than it was at that time and it
is and would be used widely and critically.
Now would it be allowed that libpq couldn't even talk to the previous
version ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp