On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 17:35, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I wrote: >>> Now if we had a track record showing that we could tweak the protocol >>> version without causing problems, it'd be fine with me to do it for this >>> usage. But we don't, and this particular case doesn't seem like the >>> place to start. >> >> And, btw, a moment's study of the protocol version checking code in >> postmaster.c shows that bumping the minor version number to 3.1 *would* >> break things: a client requesting 3.1 from a current postmaster would >> get a failure. > > Given that, it seems that there is far more downside than upside to > this particular change, and we shouldn't do it. Accordingly, I'm > going to mark the open item "raise protocol version number" closed.
+1. >> Maybe we oughta change that logic --- it's not clear to me that there's >> any meaningful difference between major and minor numbers given the >> current postmaster behavior. > > I don't think this would be a bad thing to do if we're fairly clear > that it's correct and won't break anything, but I don't think it's > worth delaying beta for, so I propose not to add it to the open items > list unless someone else feels otherwise. Perhaps this part should go on the TODO list then? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
