[ still catching up on old email ] I wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 09/11/2013 02:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> Note that I was proposing removing libpq's support for V2 connections. >>>> Not the backend's.
>>> I vote against this. If we remove V2 support from libpq, then we'll >>> have no easy way to test that the backend's support still works. >> How is it tested now, and who is doing the testing? > Exactly. The current support in libpq is nigh useless for testing > purposes, because there's no way to activate that code path on command. > It only runs if libpq (thinks it) is connecting to a pre-7.4 backend. Actually ... there's another way we might deal with this. Suppose we invent a libpq connection option to specify whether to use v2 or v3 protocol, defaulting to the latter, and then just remove the protocol- fallback-during-connection code path. If there is anyone out there using a modern libpq to talk to a pre-7.4 server, they can be told to invoke the connection option. This gets rid of the unexpected-protocol-downgrade problem in a reliable manner, and it also gives us a way to test V2 code paths in both libpq and the backend, which Andrew is correct to finger as something that goes nearly totally untested right now. The main objections I can see to this are (1) it wouldn't provide a back-patchable fix, and (2) it'd be adding more legacy code instead of removing it. But the other approaches that we've talked about didn't sound very back-patchable either, so I think only (2) really holds much water. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers