From: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgbench / compatibility with old(er) releases |
Date: | 2013-08-18 16:31:13 |
Message-ID: | 5210F6D1.1030203@fuzzy.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18.8.2013 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> TBH this seems like way too much cruft to be added in support of what
> are after all *unsupported* releases. And how far back do we stop,
> anyway?
>
> I'd suggest you test all the branches with the newest pgbench
> version that happens to work with the oldest branch you care about.
That won't give me the 9.3-only features (that I really want/need).
> Having said that, it seems like (a) could be fixed with about a
> one-line change, if we simply made it not add the "with
> (fillfactor=%d)" clause when fillfactor was at 100. And I'm not
Yeah, that seems line a nice solution - no additional option.
Another solution is to use custom scripts, and only use pgbench to
execute them. That'd solve the IF EXISTS problem too.
> clear why (b) is a problem; libpq already takes care of suppressing
> application_name when connecting to old servers.
Hmmm, I'm getting this in the log (when connection to 8.0.0):
FATAL: unrecognized configuration parameter "application_name"
but it seems to be working. I'm wondering if FATAL is appropriate here.
Tomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2013-08-18 16:46:30 | Re: CREATE FUNCTION .. SET vs. pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-18 16:21:58 | Re: Feature Request on Extensions |