Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: >> Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I >> was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so >> someone else could have taken over.
> OK, so that brings up a good question. Can we change the protocol for > this without causing major breakage? Tom seems to indicate that it can > be done for 9.4, but I thought protocol breakage was a major issue. Are > we really changing the wire protocol here, or just the type of string we > can pass back to the interface? What I said about it upthread was "this is effectively a protocol change, albeit a pretty minor one, so I can't see back-patching it". The discussion in bug #7766 shows that some client-side code is likely to need fixing, and that such fixing might actually be nontrivial for them. So changing this in a minor release is clearly a bad idea. But I don't have a problem with widening the counters in a major release where we can document it as a potential compatibility issue. I took a quick look and noted that CMDSTATUS_LEN and COMPLETION_TAG_BUFSIZE are set to 64, and have been for quite a long time, so command status string buffer sizes should not be a problem. I think we probably just need to widen es_processed and touch related code. Not sure what else Vik saw that needed doing. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers