On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2017-10-16 16:59:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: >>> > Here's what I roughly was thinking of. I don't quite like the name, and >>> > the way the version is specified for libpq (basically just the "raw" >>> > integer). >>> >>> "forced_protocol_version" reads wrong to me. I think >>> "force_protocol_version" might be better. Other than that, no issues >>> with this concept. >> >> Yea, I agree. I've read through the patch since, and it struck me as >> odd. Not sure how I came up with it... > > Andres, could you update the patch?
Seeing no activity for three weeks and as we are close to the end of the CF, I am marking this one as returned with feedback. -- Michael
