MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADK3HHKe1PA1U6aB5-7tWBQ0yZGgNvY7H=ECDD9955Pas_zx_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQRQ5optaG4DPbshKS+zpUtn_oceh8-qdshFbS+-FSb8Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+nVQRpSs3vd_v9L8ytO9wnL2ndnzGwU31aDGorVFxrAYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQSZ43JMjA8QEJoF9DCdTO0GQeR2qyhouQciSG2ik40Yhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOYmi+m20jS8zZ2qFpSnvhaqGDX+vtgCsqcu9VhokyLqF8kFag@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HH+DPY_x_H=e0c_AVWoUP9E+YXdyJDVvmzYEYxZXT87Agw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQRZwbuSNp-mgPWmC97q63ODAun=pQtXa1Ru19ksz986Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HHKDrnRAoAcUv1ucLB0o_ZUcJRwm+jonNPNUHoDtcA9Crw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGECzQQriv-h_h8Ygxh_RfnLt2G4P9nWrpgMi9YL2bmcOLbUEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HHL_cUzm-R+0nHcLvxdOZQeR0YKQMDjwLTEiGX-F9=tbeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK3HH+o9dTYsXpCk7-Z0JW-QB2TV7=e97O8B-XDOGQb14AfSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOYmi+kkTbuwGa9X=XomNivAw9P4hN3M1U7QXiP7Jw+nrQXtNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+kkTbuwGa9X=XomNivAw9P4hN3M1U7QXiP7Jw+nrQXtNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 15:48:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGECzQSfCPXdOpUKfdkPA9iZhGyRjZAad-CXbhApZ2CnjgG2kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to allow setting cursor options on Portals
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQSfCPXdOpUKfdkPA9iZhGyRjZAad-CXbhApZ2CnjgG2kw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Jan 2026 at 17:17, Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Well, I'd hoped that you and Jelte would maybe hash out your
> differences in opinion a bit before I jumped back in. You think
> extensions are orthogonal -- seemingly negating the primary advantage
> cited for regular minor bumps? -- but Jelte is optimizing for
> interrelated features.

I had a quick discord chat with Dave. And we don't disagree much with
each other: We both would like to use a version bump for these kinds
of very simple to implement features.

For an important part because we hope to do multiple of such small
changes in a single PG release, so the protocol can actually move
forward at a decent speed. Having a single version is only 1 option,
while having N protocol extensions a year gives at least N different
configurations (if they're all orthogonal, and at worst N*N).

In your first email you (Jacob) wrote this:
> I prefer protocol architectures that introduce separate
> extensions first, then periodically bundle the critical and
> highly-used extensions into a new minor version once they're sure that
> _everyone_ should support those things.

Dave and I both agree that if we create a protocol extension for every
tiny feature and then in 3 years include some of them in a protocol
bump, that's just a lot more complexity that every client author will
have to deal with in the long run.