On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 04:02, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>>> ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to >>>>> 3.1 and send PGRES_COPY_OUT if the client requests version 3.0. That's >>>>> what the version numbers are for, no? >>>> >>>> In a way - yes. I assume we didn't do that because it's considered >>>> "internal". >>>> >>>> It still won't help in my situation though - I need to know what >>>> version of the libpq headers I have in order to even be able to >>>> *compile* the program. At runtime, I could check against the server >>>> version, and get around it. >>> >>> This is listed on the open items list as "raise protocol version >>> number", but the above discussion suggests both that this might be >>> unnecessary and that it might not solve Magnus's problem anyway. >>> >>> What do we want to do here? >> >> We add an option as to how the protocol behaves, with default as 3.0. >> Older clients will not know about the new option and so will not >> request it. >> >> Magnus gets his new functionality, nothing breaks. > > No he doesn't. Not yet - it needs the version check that's added to > 9.1 - but it would have been needed for 9.0. So in a similar situation > at the next release it would be fixed, but not here. > > That doesn't mean we shouldn't do this (haven't reconsidered the whole > thread) - but it doesn't solve the issue I originally raised.
Test the release number? >= 9.0 What's wrong with that? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
