Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> But, we've had protocol changes before that breaks backward
>> compatibility...why is this all of a sudden a problem?
> No reason to change the protocol when we don't need to.
The point is that we *do not have to* break backwards compatibility to
add this feature, and indeed hardly anything would be gained by breaking
compatibility. See subsequent messages from myself and Magnus.
regards, tom lane