Horton

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

Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>

View thread
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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>, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-08-23T14:42:27Z
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 Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 16:02, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'm 100% convinced at this point that we're arguing about
> the wrong problem. Before, I didn't know for sure whether anyone would
> be mad if we redefined PQprotocolVersion(), but now I know that there
> is at least one person who will be, and that's Jacob.

I could be interpreting Jacob his response incorrectly, but my
understanding is that the type of protocol changes we would actually
do in this version bump, would determine if he's either mad or happy
that we redefined PQprotocolVersion.

> If there's one
> among regular -hackers posters, there are probably more. Since Jelte
> doesn't seem to want to produce the patch to add
> PQminorProtocolVersion(), I suggest that somebody else does that --
> Jacob, do you want to? -- and we commit that and move on.

Let's call it PQfullProtocolVersion and make it return 30002. I'm fine
with updating the patch. But I'll be unavailable for the next ~3
weeks.

> Then we can get down to the business of actually changing some stuff
> at the protocol level. IMHO, that's what should be scary and/or
> controversial here, and it's also imperative that if we're going to do
> it, we do it soon.

Agreed, but I don't think doing so is blocked on merging a
PQfullProtocolVersion libpq function.