On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> In the same line, maybe we should kill libpq's support for V2 protocol >>> (which would make the cutoff 7.4). And maybe the server's support too, >>> though that wouldn't save very much code. The argument for cutting this >>> isn't so much that we would remove lots of code as that we're removing >>> code that never gets tested, at least not by us. > >> Somehow removing the whole protocol support seems a bit different to >> me than removing pg_dump logic. For one it's nice to be able to run a >> modern psql against old servers so you can run a benchmark script. > > Yeah, but surely pre-7.4 servers are no longer of much interest for that; > or if you want historical results you should also use a matching libpq. > >> For another there may be binary-only applications or drivers out there >> that are using V2 for whatever reason. > > The problem with letting it just sit there is that we're not, in fact, > testing it. If we take the above argument seriously then we should > provide some way to configure libpq to prefer V2 and run regression > tests in that mode. Otherwise, if/when we break it, we'll never know it > till we get field reports.
I agree with that. I think it would be fine to keep V2 support if somebody wants to do the work to let us have adequate test coverage, but if nobody volunteers I think we might as well rip it out. I don't particularly enjoy committing things only to be told that they've broken something I can't test without unreasonable effort. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
