Re: Backend protocol wanted features

From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(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 20:55:40
Message-ID: CAB=Je-ESse=Q7HmDvcgbunq779+M_XLb2GW8jmJZhHYNLHp3hg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Can you provide an example which items require "changes" to backend
protocol and which do not?

Personally, I do not care if it would be named v3.0.1 or v4

I think almost all the features can be implemented on top of current
v3 messages by customizing payload (e.g. protobuf over
NotificationMessage stuff).
Just pick one and I'll elaborate :) Please, do not pick "Uniform
headers (type byte)"

In fact, it is up to backend developers to identify if a new version
of the protocol is required or a new message is required or whatever
is required to meed the requirements.

Vladimir

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Wooten 2015-12-29 21:05:45 Re: Backend protocol wanted features
Previous Message Kevin Wooten 2015-12-29 20:46:33 Re: Backend protocol wanted features