Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes: > I feel like I've said this many times already, but I really do not > understand why there's such a hesitation on bumping the minor protocol > version. Bumping the minor protocol version has zero downsides to me.
I think you have that backwards. The right way to think about it is that bumping the minor version has zero upside. What we actually want is for the client and server to agree on what specific optional features they will use, and we have a design that allows doing that in a fine-grained, extensible way. We don't need to change the protocol version number ever again, as long as we use protocol options correctly.
I would argue in the case of "cursor with hold" this should have been in the original protocol.
This is not an added feature this just enables an existing feature in the server. This is not unlike widening the cancel key.
Something like encryption would be a feature that I could see using the extension mechanism
Having said that, I share Robert's distaste for "silent" protocol bumps that change the behavior without any negotiation.
My understanding reading his message he was in favour of it
As for proxies or "middleboxes" I will concede that not advertising that we are going to change that message is a non-starter
