Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <19483.1047325975@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1047324016.99075.31.camel@jester> <19294.1047324622@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1047325296.99075.35.camel@jester>  <19483.1047325975@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-IH7srIWDN/nGkPLSRg88"
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1047332578.99075.40.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 10 Mar 2003 16:42:58 -0500

--=-IH7srIWDN/nGkPLSRg88
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 14:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> >> We already have that: you send a startup packet with a version less th=
an
> >> the latest, and the backend speaks that version to you.
>=20
> > Yes, but that requires you know the backend is less than the latest.
>=20
> As opposed to knowing what?  You send the version number you wish to spea=
k;
> either the backend can handle it, or not.

At some point PostgreSQL will have enough users that changing it will
piss them off.  If the backend cannot handle whats been requested, we
may want to consider negotiating a protocol that both can handle.

Anyway, it doesn't really affect me one way or the other.  So whatever
you like is probably fine.
--=20
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

--=-IH7srIWDN/nGkPLSRg88
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA+bQbh6DETLow6vwwRAvAlAJ44ByfHyO00Klilt1PAj0KFi4mn5ACfSpPK
pfq1nWSFAFw3WBmVK3RUYPU=
=cBs5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-IH7srIWDN/nGkPLSRg88--