Re: [HACKERS] 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: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?
Date: 2017-11-27 07:03:32
Message-ID: CAB7nPqS1H++ERmTXvxL3LXL790EHiOHUXQZ+V2MCmAcyEotV_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On 2017-10-16 16:59:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > Here's what I roughly was thinking of. I don't quite like the name, and
>>> > the way the version is specified for libpq (basically just the "raw"
>>> > integer).
>>>
>>> "forced_protocol_version" reads wrong to me. I think
>>> "force_protocol_version" might be better. Other than that, no issues
>>> with this concept.
>>
>> Yea, I agree. I've read through the patch since, and it struck me as
>> odd. Not sure how I came up with it...
>
> Andres, could you update the patch?

Seeing no activity for three weeks and as we are close to the end of
the CF, I am marking this one as returned with feedback.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-27 07:05:20 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Pageinspect - add functions on GIN and GiST indexes from gevel
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-11-27 07:01:48 Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test