| From: | Kevin Wooten <kdubb(at)me(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Hernández <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |
| Date: | 2015-12-29 21:49:48 |
| Message-ID: | D994D080-F102-4B75-9626-3E754D939759@me.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Agreed. Opting in to each specific feature wouldn’t be the cleanest but it would mean sticking with a single protocol. It would also mean that existing clients would continue work without modification for the foreseeable future.
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Well we would be adding messages that current protocol handlers may not know how to deal with which will likely require them to rewrite their code
>
> Not sure if backend developers would be happy to support multiple
> protocols at the same time.
> opt-in approach with "facelifted messages" seems more plausible.
> Vladimir
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Harvey | 2015-12-30 16:03:19 | Are pgrpm changes for JDBC discussed here before submission? |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2015-12-29 21:49:46 | Re: Backend protocol wanted features |