Re: Make query cancellation keys longer

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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);