Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:35:42 -0400 (AST)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
In-Reply-To: <200303120202.h2C226U05386@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <20030311233212.H72192@hub.org>
References: <200303120202.h2C226U05386@candle.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > 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 ...
>
> Actually, it is usually the opposite, where old clients can talk to
> newer servers, but not the reverse.

D'oh, mis-read Tom's ... you are correct, and it does make sense to do so
... its not like old libraries aren't available if someone wanted to make
a pre-compiled version that is 'backwards compatible' ...