On 2016-09-12 21:57:39 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 12/09/16 21:54, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > > On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented and > > > > not used in any later patch. We can probably do without it and just > > > > rely on the protocol version. > > > > > > > > > > That's leftover from binary type data transfer which is not part of this > > > initial approach as it adds a lot of complications to both protocol and > > > apply side. So yes can do without. > > > > FWIW, I don't think we can leave this out of the initial protocol > > design. We don't have to implement it, but it has to be part of the > > design. > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to have unimplemented parts of protocol, we > have protocol version so it can be added in v2 when we have code that is > able to handle it.
I don't think we have to have it part of the protocol. But it has to be forseen, otherwise introducing it later will end up requiring more invasive changes than acceptable. I don't want to repeat the "libpq v3 protocol" evolution story here. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers