Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 15:38, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 19:43, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 6:14 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> > > I think for clients/drivers, the work would generally be pretty
> > > minimal. For almost all proposed changes, clients can "support" the
> > > protocol version update by simply not using the new features, ...
> >
> > I mean, I agree if a particular protocol version bump does nothing
> > other than signal the presence of some optional, ignorable feature,
> > then it doesn't cause a problem if we force clients to support it. But
> > that seems a bit like saying that eating wild mushrooms is fine
> > because some of them aren't poisonous. The point is that if we roll
> > out two protocol changes, A and B, each of which requires the client
> > to make some change in order to work with the newer protocol version,
> > then using version numbers as the gating mechanism requires that the
> > client can't support the newer of those two changes without also
> > supporting the older one. Using feature flags doesn't impose that
> > constraint, which I think is a plus.
>
> I think we're in agreement here, i.e. it depends on the situation if a
> feature flag or version bump is more appropriate. I think the
> guidelines could be as follows:
> 1. For protocol changes that require "extremely minimal" work from
> clients & poolers: bump the protocol version.
> 2. For "niche" features that require some work from clients and/or
> poolers: use a protocol parameter feature flag.
> 3. For anything in between, let's discuss on the thread for that
> specific protocol change on the tradeoffs.
>

My first thought here is that all of the above is subjective and we will
end up discussing all of the above.
No real argument just an observation.

>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 19:52, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > surely it can't be right to use protocol
> > version 3.0 to refer to a bunch of different things. But at the same
> > time, surely we don't want clients to start panicking and bailing out
> > when everything would have been fine.
>
> I feel like the ProtocolVersionNegotiation should make sure people
> don't panic and bail out. And if not, then feature flags won't help
> with this either. Because clients would then still bail out if some
> feature is not supported.
>

I don't think a client should ever bail out. They may not support something
but IMO bailing out is not an option.

Dave

>
>