From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Make query cancellation keys longer |
Date: | 2024-08-16 15:29:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2ScSSVoa1qzpN9rPFmWsb=SstgFR0eBFPy1udDFm5DQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:37 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> If we envision accepting ranges like that in the future, it would be
> good to do now rather than later. Otherwise, if someone wants to require
> features from protocol 3.2 today, they will have to put
> "protocol_version=3.2" in the connection string, and later when 3.3
> version is released, their connection string will continue to force the
> then-old 3.2 version.
I'm totally cool with doing it now rather than later if you or someone
else is willing to do the work. But I don't see why we'd need a
protocol bump to change it later. If you write protocol_version=3.7 or
protocol_version=3.2-3.7 we send the same thing to the server either
way. It's only a difference in whether we slam the connection shut if
the server comes back and say it can only do 3.0.
> I'll split this patch like that, to make it easier to compare and merge
> with Jelte's corresponding patches.
That sounds great. IMHO, comparing and merging the patches is the next
step here and would be great to see.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-16 15:32:17 | Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for BRIN indexes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-08-16 15:26:58 | Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL); |