On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> writes: >>> Sorry, but I don't buy that. I think sending both server_version and >>> server_version_num would be silly, and we're certainly not going to stop >>> sending server_version. > >> What is wrong with sending machine-readable value? > > [ shrug... ] What do you claim is not machine-readable about > server_version?
Surely you can't have missed the connection between the issue at hand and what Craig is talking about. If libpq were using the machine-readable version rather than PARSING A STRING, switching to a two-part numbering scheme wouldn't force a compatibility break. Every driver that his independently implemented the PostgreSQL wire protocol is going to have to be updated for this, if they're doing something similar to libpq, and you're still asking why sending server_version_num is potentially beneficial? I think it's entirely reasonable to ask whether it's worth burdening connection startup with a few extra bytes of essentially duplicative information is a good idea on performance grounds, and I don't know the answer to that question. But pretending like it wouldn't help anything when it would fix *the exact problem we are currently talking about* is just sticking your head in the sand. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
