On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:47:17PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > BTW, if we're beating on libpq, I wonder if we shouldn't consider > > bumping the soversion at some point. I mean, I know that we > > technically don't need to do that if we're only *adding* functions and > > not changing any of the existing stuff in backward-incompatible ways, > > but we might *want* to make some backward-incompatible changes at some > > point, and I think there's a decent argument that any patch in this > > are is already doing that at least to PQgetSSL(). Maybe this would be > > a good time to think if there's anything else we want to do that > > would, either by itself or in combination, justify a bump. > > I'm not a big fan of doing it for this specific item, though it's > technically an API breakage (which means we should actually have > libpq2-dev packages, make everything that build-deps on libpq-dev > update to build-dep on libpq2-dev, have libpq6, etc..). If there are > other backwards-incompatible things we wish to do, then I agree that > it'd be good to do them all at the same time (perhaps in conjunction > with 10.0...). This is the part where I wish we had been keeping an > updated list of things we want to change (like on the wiki..).
We have, called "Wire Protocol Changes": https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo Unfortunately, the subsection link doesn't work on Firefox. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers