Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 18:04, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 11:00, Jelte Fennema-Nio > wrote: > > If we decide to keep it I think it would be best to have all protocol > > changes on a single page. I'd just put the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 at > > the bottom of the page. > > At

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 11:00, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > If we decide to keep it I think it would be best to have all protocol > changes on a single page. I'd just put the changes from 2.0 to 3.0 at > the bottom of the page. Attached are my proposed changes which split this page into different se

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 13:12, Dave Cramer wrote: > Agreed that nobody upgrades a client from 2.0 but is there value in keeping > the history ? Yeah, maybe. > Perhaps another section which would be "Changes in 3.x" ? If we decide to keep it I think it would be best to have all protocol changes

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 06:18, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 00:29, Dave Cramer wrote: > > I found another place where the docs should be updated. The Changes > since Protocol 2.0 > > I think it makes sense to have a dedicated page like this that lists > any protocol changes t

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 00:29, Dave Cramer wrote: > I found another place where the docs should be updated. The Changes since > Protocol 2.0 I think it makes sense to have a dedicated page like this that lists any protocol changes that we do. But I think the current structure doesn't make much se

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 10:34, Dave Cramer wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 11:02, Jelte Fennema-Nio > wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 22:57, Dave Cramer wrote: >> > Well this isn't quite true since if you request 3.0 and have invalid >> options it will return 3.0, which is not the highest s

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 11:02, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 22:57, Dave Cramer wrote: > > Well this isn't quite true since if you request 3.0 and have invalid > options it will return 3.0, which is not the highest supported minor > version. > > Probably good to update this se

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 21:39, Fujii Masao wrote: > While checking the code in older branches, I noticed that the returned > protocol version is always the latest version supported by the server. > However, as we discussed, in master, the server may return the version > requested by the client. The

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 22:57, Dave Cramer wrote: > Well this isn't quite true since if you request 3.0 and have invalid options > it will return 3.0, which is not the highest supported minor version. Probably good to update this section too then to be similarly correct as your already updated se

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 09:39, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2025/04/11 18:27, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 05:05, Fujii Masao > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2025/04/11 5:17, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > No, you are correct. > > >

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On 2025/04/11 18:27, Dave Cramer wrote: On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 05:05, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote: On 2025/04/11 5:17, Dave Cramer wrote: > No, you are correct. > > See new patch Thanks for updating the patch! -         Identifies th

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 05:05, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2025/04/11 5:17, Dave Cramer wrote: > > No, you are correct. > > > > See new patch > > Thanks for updating the patch! > > - Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation > + Identifies the message as a protocol v

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On 2025/04/11 5:17, Dave Cramer wrote: No, you are correct. See new patch Thanks for updating the patch! - Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation + Identifies the message as a protocol version negotiation. + The server sends this message if the req

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 12:17, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2025/04/11 0:49, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 11:17, Fujii Masao > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2025/04/10 23:40, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 a

Correct documentation for protocol version

Greetings, The current docs say that if a client asks for a protocol that the backend doesn't support, it will return the newest minor version. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-message-formats.html#PROTOCOL-MESSAGE-FORMATS-NEGOTIATEPROTOCOLVERSION However that isn't what it return

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On 2025/04/11 0:49, Dave Cramer wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 11:17, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote: On 2025/04/10 23:40, Dave Cramer wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 09:54, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 7:41 AM Dave Cramer wrote: > Done in new patch attached I think this patch splices a sentence: > + not equal to the version the server supports. > message. +1 for clarifying the message description; it has vaguely bothered me for a while [1]. :) --Jaco

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 11:17, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2025/04/10 23:40, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 09:54, Fujii Masao > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2025/04/10 18:52, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > > > Th

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On 2025/04/10 23:40, Dave Cramer wrote: On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 09:54, Fujii Masao mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote: On 2025/04/10 18:52, Dave Cramer wrote: > Greetings, > > The current docs say that if a client asks for a protocol that the backend doesn't supp

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 09:54, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2025/04/10 18:52, Dave Cramer wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > The current docs say that if a client asks for a protocol that the > backend doesn't support, it will return the newest minor version. > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pr

Re: Correct documentation for protocol version

On 2025/04/10 18:52, Dave Cramer wrote: Greetings, The current docs say that if a client asks for a protocol that the backend doesn't support, it will return the newest minor version. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-message-formats.html#PROTOCOL-MESSAGE-FORMATS-NEGOTIATEPRO