| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: libpq: Grease the protocol by default |
| Date: | 2026-02-23 22:51:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+k8ENYkErqSEYEqW39YWPfe_ii7g5Acm1c9asNuRMriNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Either that or we decide that it's time to throw 9.2 support
> overboard (looks like 9.3 and up are fine).
Well, while I was hacking on a patch I realized that 9.3 (all the way
up to 10) is only okay if you're running a sufficiently patched
version. PG11 is the first to support negotiation for the whole
release line.
> If it's not hard to add the connection option to this test, let's do
> that --- but if it is a problem, I wouldn't shed too many tears over
> moving the oldest-old-version goalpost. I think we might not be able
> to fix the test without changing buildfarm client script and/or
> configuration.
I think Jelte said it well back on the -committers thread:
> Why only force max_protocol_version=3.0 for beta? It sounds like
> this would also be an issue once we eventually bump the default
> version.
So a fix belongs in pg_upgrade, IMO, instead of the test. I have a
draft passing locally that I should be able to share soon.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-02-23 23:34:42 | Re: pgsql: libpq: Grease the protocol by default |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2026-02-23 22:24:34 | Re: pgsql: libpq: Grease the protocol by default |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-02-23 23:20:11 | Re: BUG #19393: pg_upgrade fails with duplicate key violation when CHECK constraint named *_not_null exists |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-02-23 22:27:59 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |