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

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 05:44, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I feel like what you're really complaining about here is that libpq is
> not properly versioned. We've just been calling it libpq.so.5 forever
> instead of bumping the version number when we change stuff.

There is PQlibVersion() that can be used for this. Which has existed
since 2010, so people can assume it exists.

> I just don't see why this particular change is special.

I didn't mean to say that it was, and I don't think the problem is
enormous either. I mainly meant to say that there is not just a cost
to Postgres maintainers when we introduce a new API. There's
definitely a cost to users and client authors too.

> Also, I kind of wish you had brought this argument up earlier. Maybe
> you did and I missed it, but I was under the impression that you were
> just arguing that "nobody will notice or care," which is a quite
> different argument than what you make here.

"nobody will notice or care" was definitely my argument before Jacob
responded. Since Jacob his response I realize there are two valid use
cases for PQprotocolVersion():

1. Feature detection. For this my argument still is: people won't
notice. Many people won't have bothered to use the function and
everyone else will have used >= 3 here.
2. Pinning the protocol version, because they care that the exact
protocol details are the same. Here people will have used == 3, and
thus their check will fail when we start to return a different version
from PQprotocolVersion(). But that's actually what this usecase
desires. By creating a new function, we actually break the expectation
of these people: i.e. they want the PQprotocolVersion() to return a
different version when the protocol changes.

Before Jacob responded I only considered the first case. So my
argument was indeed basically: Let's reuse this currently useless
function with the nice name, because no-one will care. But if people
thought that the risk was too high, I didn't see huge downsides to
introducing a new API either.

But **now I actually feel much more strongly about reusing the same
function**. Because by introducing a new function we actually break
the users of the second use-case.

P.S. The docs for PQprotocolVersion[1] have never said that this
function only returns the major protocol version. And by using the
word "Currently" it has always suggested that new return values could
be introduced later, and thus for feature detection you should use >=
3

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/libpq-status.html#LIBPQ-PQPROTOCOLVERSION