Sender: phil
Message-ID: <3548C11D.BE04EDC4@river-bank.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:21:17 +0000
From: Phil Thompson <phil@river-bank.demon.co.uk>
Organization: At home
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
References: <11094.893887279@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Phil Thompson <phil@river-bank.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We should change the protocol version number to 2.0.
> >> It would be possible for the backend to continue to support 1.0 clients,
> >> if you think it's worth the trouble to do so.
> 
> > Or 1.1?  The changes don't seem too traumatic.
> 
> Well, pqcomm.h says that an incompatible change should have a new major
> version number, and minor though these changes be, they *are*
> incompatible.

Err...good point :)

> >> Command Done
> >> Byte1('Z')
> 
> > The completion response already does this for successful queries, and
> > the error response for unsuccessful ones.
> 
> You missed the point:

I've misunderstood the protocol - and the protocol specification is
therefore wrong (or at least incomplete) in this respect.  Do you want
to fix the spec and include your enhancements or shall I?

Phil