Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vgAJx-008us2-2R for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 23:30:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vgAJw-00DZDg-0Y for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 23:30:36 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vgAJv-00DZDV-2q for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 23:30:36 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vgAJt-000T9i-27 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 23:30:35 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 60ENUEsl431485; Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:30:15 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Jelte Fennema-Nio cc: Robert Haas , Dave Cramer , Jacob Champion , PostgreSQL Hackers , Heikki Linnakangas Subject: Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals In-reply-to: References: <2155281.1767900170@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Jelte Fennema-Nio message dated "Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:12:03 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <431483.1768433414.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:30:14 -0500 Message-ID: <431484.1768433414@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Jelte Fennema-Nio writes: > I feel like I've said this many times already, but I really do not > understand why there's such a hesitation on bumping the minor protocol > version. Bumping the minor protocol version has zero downsides to me. I think you have that backwards. The right way to think about it is that bumping the minor version has zero upside. What we actually want is for the client and server to agree on what specific optional features they will use, and we have a design that allows doing that in a fine-grained, extensible way. We don't need to change the protocol version number ever again, as long as we use protocol options correctly. Having said that, I share Robert's distaste for "silent" protocol bumps that change the behavior without any negotiation. regards, tom lane