Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> That sounds like the right approach to me. Note that I have also
> previously expressed my disagreement with the idea of bumping the
> protocol version regularly. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea
> of using protocol extensions for everything, because I really imagined
> that they would be used for larger features that made a cluster of
> related changes rather than solitary changes, and that there wouldn't
> be many of them.
I kind of doubt that there will ever be many of them, but if we start
to feel like there's a lot, we could invent abbreviations: single
feature names that clients can ask for that are defined to represent
a particular set of older features. But I'd argue that those sets
should be groups of related functions, not "whatever random stuff
exists as of Postgres 27". I think it'll be highly useful for clients
to declare which features they want, rather than leave people
wondering exactly which features this client intends to support.
regards, tom lane
