On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 17:51, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> Yeah, it wouldn't be hard to produce a long list of things which
>> would take about the same effort which seem more beneficial to me.
>> It's a matter of whether this is causing someone enough bother to
>> want to devote the resources to changing it.
> The problem with something like a protocol bump is that the coding
> required to make it happen (in the backend and libpq, that is) is only a
> small part of the total distributed cost.  So even if someone stepped up
> with a patch, it'd likely get rejected outright, unless there's
> significant community buy-in to the need for it.
> I agree with Kevin's comment that the right thing to be doing now would
> be to be keeping a list of things we might want to change the protocol
> for.  It's just about certain that no single element on that list will
> be sufficient reason to change, but once there are enough of them maybe
> we'll have critical mass to do them all together.
> (Actually, isn't there such a page on the wiki already?  Or a subsection
> of the TODO list?)

There is. Currently section 27.3 (seems not to have an anchor to link,
and might change numbers when other things change, but that's what
it's called now). Heading "wire protocol changes".

And I think this is on there already?

 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:

Reply via email to