Magnus Hagander wrote: >Gregory Stark wrote: >> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> We could have the server indicate it's the new protocol by sending the >> initial >> cancel key twice. If the client sees more than one cancel key it >> automatically >> switches to new-style cancel messages.
>That will still break things like JDBC I think - they only expect one >cancel message, and then move on to expect other things. Why didn't they follow recommended practice to process any message anytime? Was/is there a specific reason to avoid that in that driver? (Just curious). >What would work is using a parameter field, per Stephen's suggestion >elsewhere in the thread. Older libpq versions should just ignore the >parameter if they don't know what it is. Question is, is that too ugly a >workaround, since we'll need to keep it around forever? (We have special >handling of a few other parameters already, so maybe not?) You only need to keep the runtimeparameter for as long as you don't bump the protocol version. Then again, runtimeparameters are cheap. -- Sincerely, Stephen R. van den Berg. "And now for something *completely* different!" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers