From: | Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Hernández <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |
Date: | 2015-12-29 21:19:45 |
Message-ID: | 844BC161-6A9F-4F9E-85DF-749B95D4EAC7@me.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Ok well if you define as new protocol as any change, regardless of backwards compatibility, then yes. I would define a “new protocol” as something that has breaking changes with a previous version or at the very least a known deviation from existing behavior.
Extending the protocol with some “well-defined” notifications (using the system that is already well-defined) is not something I would consider a new protocol.
I guess like you suggested we’re talking about the semantics of a “3.1” versus “4.0”. I’m looking for mostly “3.1” type of stuff.
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So maybe they all are fairly easily implementable in the current protocol?
>
> New messages => new protocol.
>
> For instance "schema_notification" message need to be well-defined,
> thus it deserves its own entry in the protocol documentation.
> Doesn't it?
> Vladimir
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2015-12-29 21:29:51 | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |
Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2015-12-29 21:08:29 | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |