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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to