Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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  (Yury Zhuravlev <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru>)
Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
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:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e'
Следующее
От: Christian Ullrich
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: BUG #13854: SSPI authentication failure: wrong realm name used