X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Received: from hub.org (unknown [64.117.224.146]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4372474E4F; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:17:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from [64.117.224.146] (unknown [64.117.224.146]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192031038BE2; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:17:53 -0400 (AST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:17:51 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign In-Reply-To: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: <20030311211526.H72192@hub.org> References: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200303/447 X-Sequence-Number: 36693 On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're > willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least > resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol > revisions in the past: the backend will be able to handle both old and > new protocols (so it can talk to old clients) but libpq would be revised > to speak only the new protocol (so new/recompiled clients couldn't talk > to old backends). We've gotten away with this approach in the past, but > the last time was release 6.4. I fully expect to hear more complaints > now. Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers anyway ...