| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers? |
| Date: | 2017-09-18 09:53:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20170918095303.g766pdnvviqlewph@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-18 09:57:04 | src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging on particular environment |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2017-09-18 09:47:40 | Re: Automatic testing of patches in commit fest |