Horton

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

Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>

View thread
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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: 2024-08-23T19:39:58Z
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.

Attachments

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 7:42 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
>
> 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.

Yes, but my conclusion is pretty much the same: let's talk about the
protocol changes. If we get to the end and revert the new API because
it's no longer adding anything -- e.g. because we've decided that
minor versions no longer have any compatibility guarantees at all --
so be it.

> > 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.

Agreed on the name. I've attached a reconfigured version of v15-0003,
with an extension that should hopefully not throw off the cfbot, and a
commit message that should hopefully not misrepresent the discussion
so far?

Thanks,
--Jacob