Okay, I will add a mechanism to try connecting with 3.0 if 3.1 fails- that 
should be a few lines of code fe-connect.c; this will eliminate the need for a 
back-patch. What do you think of the rest of the change? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 4:54 AM
To: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Badrul Chowdhury <bac...@microsoft.com>; Satyanarayana Narlapuram 
<satyanarayana.narlapu...@microsoft.com>; Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com>; 
Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>; Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>; 
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq 
PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility)

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Badrul Chowdhury <bac...@microsoft.com> writes:
>> 1. Pgwire protocol v3.0 with negotiation is called v3.1.
>> 2. There are 2 patches for the change: a BE-specific patch that will be 
>> backported and a FE-specific patch that is only for pg10 and above.
> TBH, anything that presupposes a backported change in the backend is 
> broken by definition.  We expect libpq to be able to connect to older 
> servers, and that has to include servers that didn't get this memo.
> It would be all right for libpq to make a second connection attempt if 
> its first one fails, as we did in the 2.0 -> 3.0 change.

Hmm, that's another approach, but I prefer the one advocated by Tom Lane.


Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to