Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <me@jeltef.nl>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs@instructure.com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>

Date: 2024-05-23T20:00:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

libpq: Add min/max_protocol_version connection options
- 285613c60a7a 18.0 landed
libpq: Handle NegotiateProtocolVersion message differently
- 5070349102af 18.0 landed
Add PQfullProtocolVersion() to surface the precise protocol version.
- cdb6b0fdb0b2 18.0 landed
Do not hardcode PG_PROTOCOL_LATEST in NegotiateProtocolVersion
- 516b87502dc1 18.0 landed
libpq: Handle NegotiateProtocolVersion message
- bbf9c282ce92 16.0 cited
Provide for forward compatibility with future minor protocol versions.
- ae65f6066dc3 11.0 cited

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think part of the reason we ended up with the protocol parameters =
> GUCs thing is because you seemed to be concurring with that approach
> upthread. I think it was Jelte's idea originally, but I interpreted
> some of your earlier remarks to be supporting it. I'm not sure whether
> you've revised your opinion, or just refined it, or whether we
> misinterpreted your earlier remarks.

I don't recall exactly what I thought earlier, but now I think we'd
be better off with separate infrastructure.  guc.c is unduly complex
already.  Perhaps there are bits of it that could be factored out
and shared, but I bet not a lot.

			regards, tom lane