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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2024-05-24T13:28:32Z
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 →
  1. libpq: Add min/max_protocol_version connection options

  2. libpq: Handle NegotiateProtocolVersion message differently

  3. Add PQfullProtocolVersion() to surface the precise protocol version.

  4. Do not hardcode PG_PROTOCOL_LATEST in NegotiateProtocolVersion

  5. libpq: Handle NegotiateProtocolVersion message

  6. Provide for forward compatibility with future minor protocol versions.

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 4:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

OK. That seems fine to me, but I bet Jelte is going to disagree.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com