Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com, fgp(at)phlo(dot)org, alex-goncharov(at)comcast(dot)net, mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable
Date: 2011-10-10 08:30:05
Message-ID: 1318235405.31687.0.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On sön, 2011-10-09 at 11:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem with something like a protocol bump is that the coding
> required to make it happen (in the backend and libpq, that is) is only
> a small part of the total distributed cost.

Why do we have major and minor protocol version numbers, which are
supposed to allow incremental addition of features to the protocol?
What other costs do you have in mind?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2011-10-10 09:40:29 Re: WIP: Collecting statistics on CSV file data
Previous Message PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig 2011-10-10 08:12:58 Re: What is known about PostgreSQL HP-UX support?