Just a note from me - I also agree this thread evolved (or rather devolved) in a rather unproductive and strange way.
One important note that came out, though, is that adding a new client message does have a backwards compatibility issue - intelligent proxies such as pgbouncer/pgpool will probably break once they see an unknown client message. Even if they don't, they may miss potentially important information being transmitted to the server. Whether this is a deal-breaker for introducing new messages is another matter (I personally don't think so). On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-08-23 11:42:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this could possibly be done, but it seems a lot better to me > > to just bite the bullet and add a new protocol message. That was > > proposed by Tom Lane on July 31st and I think it's still by far the > > best and easiest idea proposed, except I think we could introduce it > > without waiting for a bigger rework of the protocol if we design the > > libpq APIs carefully. Most of the rest of this thread seems to have > > devolved into an argument about whether this is really necessary, > > which IMHO is a pretty silly argument, instead of focusing on how it > > might be done, which I think would be a much more productive > > conversation. > > I agree about the odd course of the further discussion, especially the > tone was rather odd. But I do think it's valuable to think about a path > that fixes the issue without requiring version-dependant adaptions in > all client drivers. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund >
