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
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 |