On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're > > > willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least > > > resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol > > > revisions in the past: the backend will be able to handle both old and > > > new protocols (so it can talk to old clients) but libpq would be revised > > > to speak only the new protocol (so new/recompiled clients couldn't talk > > > to old backends). We've gotten away with this approach in the past, but > > > the last time was release 6.4. I fully expect to hear more complaints > > > now. > > > > Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you > > have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers > > anyway ... > > Actually, it is usually the opposite, where old clients can talk to > newer servers, but not the reverse.
D'oh, mis-read Tom's ... you are correct, and it does make sense to do so ... its not like old libraries aren't available if someone wanted to make a pre-compiled version that is 'backwards compatible' ... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
