Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE
От | Vladimir Sitnikov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB=Je-FM4YjUg9sksEZ8htdau=4qu+xMZounAVm4WtbBbquWbQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE
Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom>If you think that's not a protocol change, you are mistaken. It Tom>changes a behavior that's specified in the protocol documentation. Even if it requires documentation, this particular change will work seamlessly across existing implementations of v3 protocol. For instance, it would not require to update pgbouncer to support that __ convention. In other words, __ convention is transparent to pgbouncer. Consider Prepare2 kind of message is added. Then it would require to update virtually every software that talks v3 protocol. That is why I say that "some kind of __ convention" does not require protocol version bump, while "adding new message" does require the bump. Just to be clear: I'm not fond of encoding the answer to the universe into statement name. However, I find that "name convention" a smart invention. Vladimir
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: