Re: Backend protocol wanted features

None of my wishlist items are… any of the complications related to items on my whishlist can be mitigated with making them opt in “set preferred_format=‘binary’” or “set schema_notifications=‘true’”.

So maybe they all are fairly easily implementable in the current protocol? (although some of Alvaro’s items seem pretty broad).

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Can you provide an example which items require "changes" to backend
> protocol and which do not?
>
> Personally, I do not care if it would be named v3.0.1 or v4
>
> I think almost all the features can be implemented on top of current
> v3 messages by customizing payload (e.g. protobuf over
> NotificationMessage stuff).
> Just pick one and I'll elaborate :) Please, do not pick "Uniform
> headers (type byte)"
>
> In fact, it is up to backend developers to identify if a new version
> of the protocol is required or a new message is required or whatever
> is required to meed the requirements.
>
> Vladimir
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc