Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2] (may be forged)) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA54217; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:39:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA15752; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:38:32 -0400 (EDT) To: The Hermit Hacker cc: Magnus Hagander , pgsql-interfaces@hub.org, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: SSL patch In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:16:56 -0300 (ADT) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:38:32 -0400 Message-ID: <15750.932762312@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane The Hermit Hacker writes: > I may be lost here, so forgive me ahead of time...but, if I'm reading > Magnus' email correctly, this just breaks backward compatibility...with > the change, pre-6.6 clients would not be able to talk to a 6.6 server, but > 6.7 and 6.6 would be compatible? As long as we don't change it again for 6.7, yeah ... but that doesn't seem like the point. What I'm concerned about is that we'd have neither compatibility between existing clients and new servers nor existing servers and new clients. When we changed the protocol for 6.4, we got quite a bit of flak about 6.4 clients not talking to old servers. But that was just a one-way whammy: a 6.4 server would still talk to old clients. This change is gonna be a double whammy. I think we at least need to find a way to have new servers be able to talk to old clients. Otherwise, it'll be *very* difficult to upgrade to 6.6 at large installations; you'd have to change all the clients simultaneously with the server. Those clients aren't necessarily all on the same machine, and some may not even be under the db admin's direct control. It looks like a recipe for major headaches to me. regards, tom lane