| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mikko Tiihonen <mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |
| Date: | 2012-01-23 19:49:09 |
| Message-ID: | 7427.1327348149@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ bytea_output doesn't need to be GUC_REPORT because format is autodetectable ]
Fair enough. Anyway we're really about two years too late to revisit that.
> Btw, it does not seems that per-request metainfo change requires
> "major version". It just client can send extra metainfo packet
> before bind+execute, if it knows server version is good enough.
That is nonsense. You're changing the protocol, and then saying
that clients should consult the server version instead of the
protocol version to know what to do.
> 2. Can we postpone minor data format changes on the wire until there
> is proper way for clients to request on-the-wire formats?
I think that people are coming around to that position, ie, we need
a well-engineered solution to the versioning problem *first*, and
should not accept incompatible minor improvements until we have that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-23 19:56:24 | Re: Measuring relation free space |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-01-23 19:45:34 | Re: Multithread Query Planner |