| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Date: | 2024-04-10 10:35:52 |
| Message-ID: | 7ad2dc74-9faa-4658-92c8-848ec8e3f30a@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.04.24 14:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> I also wonder how the protocol negotiation for column encryption is
> actually going to work. What are the actual wire protocol changes that
> are needed? What does the server need to know from the client, or the
> client from the server, about what is supported?
I have just posted an updated patch for that: [0]
The protocol changes can be inspected in the diffs for
doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml
src/backend/access/common/printtup.c
src/interfaces/libpq/fe-protocol3.c
There are various changes, including new messages, additional fields in
existing messages, and some more flag bits in existing fields.
It all works, so I don't have any requests or anything in this thread,
but it would be good to get some feedback if I'm using this wrong.
AFAICT, that patch was the first public one that ever tried to make use
of the protocol extension facility, so I was mainly guessing about the
intended way to use this.
[0]:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f63fe170-cef2-4914-be00-ef9222456505%40eisentraut.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-04-10 10:54:13 | Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-04-10 10:21:04 | Re: Potential stack overflow in incremental base backup |