|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017-09-18 02:53:03 -0700, Andres Freund 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=# \setenv PGFORCEV2 1
> postgres=# \c
> You are now connected to database "postgres" as user "andres".
> 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.
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). Not sure if others have an opinion on that. I personally
would lean towards not documenting this option...
There's a few things that I couldn't find easy ways to test:
- the v2 specific binary protocol - I don't quite see how we could test
that without writing C
- version error checks - pg_regress/psql errors out in non-interactive
mode if a connection fails to be established. This we could verify
with a s simple tap test.
Coverage of the relevant files is a good bit higher afterwards. Although
our libpq coverage is generally pretty damn awful.
|Next Message||Rafia Sabih||2017-09-20 08:33:25||Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables|
|Previous Message||Arthur Zakirov||2017-09-20 08:12:28||Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting|