Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?
Date: 2017-09-18 10:50:17
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRrkp1ykrO1ZyQr4by10cO4TaJDfOGU63K9NTGiVzBp9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The real problem in this area, to my mind, is that we're not testing that
>> code --- either end of it --- in any systematic way. If it's broken it
>> could take us quite a while to notice.
>
> Independent of the thrust of my question - why aren't we adding a
> 'force-v2' option to libpq? A test that basically does something like
> postgres[22923][1]=# \setenv PGFORCEV2 1
> postgres[22923][1]=# \c
> You are now connected to database "postgres" as user "andres".
> postgres[22924][1]=>
> seems easy enough to add, in fact I tested the above.
>
> And the protocol coverage of the v2 protocol seems small enough that a
> single not too large file ought to cover most if it quite easily.

It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter here.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-09-18 10:54:16 Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-09-18 10:33:29 Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage