Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Phil Thompson <phil@river-bank.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We should change the protocol version number to 2.0.
> >> It would be possible for the backend to continue to support 1.0 clients,
> >> if you think it's worth the trouble to do so.
>
> > Or 1.1? The changes don't seem too traumatic.
>
> Well, pqcomm.h says that an incompatible change should have a new major
> version number, and minor though these changes be, they *are*
> incompatible.
Err...good point :)
> >> Command Done
> >> Byte1('Z')
>
> > The completion response already does this for successful queries, and
> > the error response for unsuccessful ones.
>
> You missed the point:
I've misunderstood the protocol - and the protocol specification is
therefore wrong (or at least incomplete) in this respect. Do you want
to fix the spec and include your enhancements or shall I?
Phil