Sender: phil
Message-ID: <3548C407.7FDF45A0@river-bank.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:33:43 +0000
From: Phil Thompson <phil@river-bank.demon.co.uk>
Organization: At home
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
CC: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
References: <199804292303.TAA27447@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Either way, maintaining
> > support for 1.0 is important as not all of us use libpq and we need time
> > to catch up.  Also we don't want to put barriers in the way of companies
> > like Openlink who seem willing to provide support for PostgreSQL in
> > commercial products.
> 
> Yes, but there will be a month for people to get their third-part stuff
> changed, and the changes are pretty straight-forward.  Having support
> for both in the backend/frontend is going to make that code more
> difficult.

I agree it will be easy enough for most of us, but may be less so for
companies that traditionally don't release often.  Although I don't use
Openlink's software and can't comment on whether it's any good (or if
anybody actually uses it), I take it as a compliment to PostgreSQL that
a commercial organisation is willing to provide some support for it. 
Not maintaining backwards compatibility for at least some time isn't
going to encourage them to continue that support.

Phil