On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:38:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I > >> was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so > >> someone else could have taken over. > > > OK, so that brings up a good question. Can we change the protocol for > > this without causing major breakage? Tom seems to indicate that it can > > be done for 9.4, but I thought protocol breakage was a major issue. Are > > we really changing the wire protocol here, or just the type of string we > > can pass back to the interface? > > What I said about it upthread was "this is effectively a protocol change, > albeit a pretty minor one, so I can't see back-patching it". > > The discussion in bug #7766 shows that some client-side code is likely to > need fixing, and that such fixing might actually be nontrivial for them. > So changing this in a minor release is clearly a bad idea. But I don't > have a problem with widening the counters in a major release where we > can document it as a potential compatibility issue. > > I took a quick look and noted that CMDSTATUS_LEN and > COMPLETION_TAG_BUFSIZE are set to 64, and have been for quite a long time, > so command status string buffer sizes should not be a problem. > > I think we probably just need to widen es_processed and touch related > code. Not sure what else Vik saw that needed doing. OK, thanks for the feedback. I understand now. The contents of the string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of the string in the wire protocol doesn't change. Let's wait for Vik to reply and I think we can move forward. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
