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

From: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Date: 2024-08-23 19:39:58
Message-ID: CAOYmi+mM8+6Swt1k7XsLcichJv8xdhPnuNv7-02zJWsezuDL+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 7:42 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 16:02, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Personally, I'm 100% convinced at this point that we're arguing about
> > the wrong problem. Before, I didn't know for sure whether anyone would
> > be mad if we redefined PQprotocolVersion(), but now I know that there
> > is at least one person who will be, and that's Jacob.
>
> I could be interpreting Jacob his response incorrectly, but my
> understanding is that the type of protocol changes we would actually
> do in this version bump, would determine if he's either mad or happy
> that we redefined PQprotocolVersion.

Yes, but my conclusion is pretty much the same: let's talk about the
protocol changes. If we get to the end and revert the new API because
it's no longer adding anything -- e.g. because we've decided that
minor versions no longer have any compatibility guarantees at all --
so be it.

> > If there's one
> > among regular -hackers posters, there are probably more. Since Jelte
> > doesn't seem to want to produce the patch to add
> > PQminorProtocolVersion(), I suggest that somebody else does that --
> > Jacob, do you want to? -- and we commit that and move on.
>
> Let's call it PQfullProtocolVersion and make it return 30002. I'm fine
> with updating the patch. But I'll be unavailable for the next ~3
> weeks.

Agreed on the name. I've attached a reconfigured version of v15-0003,
with an extension that should hopefully not throw off the cfbot, and a
commit message that should hopefully not misrepresent the discussion
so far?

Thanks,
--Jacob

Attachment Content-Type Size
libpq-surface-the-full-protocol-version-to-clients.patch.txt text/plain 5.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-08-23 20:31:54 Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-08-23 19:32:11 Re: On disable_cost