Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-10-16 16:59:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Here's what I roughly was thinking of. I don't quite like the name, and >> > the way the version is specified for

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 2017-10-16 16:59:59 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: > > 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). > > "forced_protocol_version" reads

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 9/20/17 04:32, Andres Freund wrote: > 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). "forced_protocol_version" reads wrong to me. I think "force_protocol_version" might be better.

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> I'm actually inclined not to, and keep this as a undocumented debugging >> option. Limiting the use of this option to people willing to read

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm actually inclined not to, and keep this as a undocumented debugging > option. Limiting the use of this option to people willing to read the > code seems like a good idea to me. -1. I use the documentation to find

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I'm not following. The "D" is in the 'dispchar' field, not the value > field, no? The default value is NULL? Oops, yes. I misread the code. Other debug options are not documented, so fine for me to not provide any

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Hi, On 2017-10-11 10:40:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> + if (conn->forced_protocol_version != NULL) > >> + { > >> + conn->pversion = atoi(conn->forced_protocol_version); > >> + } > >> This should check for strlen > 0 as well. > > > > Why? Note that we don't do elsehwere in

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-10-11 10:09:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> Coverage of the

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Hi, On 2017-10-11 10:09:34 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Coverage of the relevant files is a good bit higher afterwards. Although > >> our libpq coverage is

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Coverage of the relevant files is a good bit higher afterwards. Although >> our libpq coverage is generally pretty damn awful. > > Any opinions on this? Obviously this

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

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. >

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 09/18/2017 04:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Private: Not so much. Well, as much as the Internet is actually private: https://ilccyberreport.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nsa11.jpg JD ;) -- Command Prompt, Inc. ||

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Private: Not so much. -- 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > And now you missed the "same infrastructure" part. I am sort of aware of that per the list of parameters at the top fe-connect.c, thanks for the reminer :) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 4:15:31 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >> >> >> On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier > wrote: >>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund >>wrote: It seems to me that you are looking more

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 4:08:21 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund >wrote: >>>It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter >>>here. >> >> I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter >>here. > > I'm not seeing a meaningful distinction here? Env vars and connection > parameters are handled using the same framework in libpq. And using

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On September 18, 2017 3:50:17 AM PDT, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> One small problem with cutting libpq's V2 support is that the server's >>> report_fork_failure_to_client() function still sends a V2-style message. > >> We should really fix that so it reports the error as a v3 message, >>

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Hi, On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > Re-upping this topic. > > > On 2016-10-07 10:06:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In the same line, maybe we should kill libpq's support for V2 protocol > >> (which would make the cutoff 7.4). And

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Andres Freund writes: > Re-upping this topic. > On 2016-10-07 10:06:07 -0400, Tom Lane 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Hi, Re-upping this topic. On 2016-10-07 10:06:07 -0400, Tom Lane 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 10/11/2016 08:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Not sure where to go from here, but the idea of dropping V2 support >> is seeming attractive again. Or we could just continue the policy >> of benign neglect. > > Let's drop

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

I wrote: > pg_dump alleges support for dumping from servers back to 7.0. Would v10 > be a good time to remove some of that code? It's getting harder and > harder to even compile those ancient branches, let alone get people to > test against them (cf. 4806f26f9). My initial thought is to cut

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 10/11/2016 08:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Not sure where to go from here, but the idea of dropping V2 support is seeming attractive again. Or we could just continue the policy of benign neglect. Let's drop it. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 10 October 2016 at 10:45, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 10/7/16 1:08 PM, Steve Crawford wrote: >> >> This is effectively a 5-year upgrade "grace period" *after* the EOL date >> of a given version which seems plenty generous. > > > IMHO we need to be careful here. It's not at

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On 10/7/16 1:08 PM, Steve Crawford wrote: This is effectively a 5-year upgrade "grace period" *after* the EOL date of a given version which seems plenty generous. IMHO we need to be careful here. It's not at all unusual to see servers running versions that are *far* older than that. It's

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

This thread gets me thinking about the definition of "support." While support in practice seems to primarily relate to fixes/updates to the supported version itself it could just as well apply to interoperability support by newer versions. Given that the standard PostgreSQL upgrade process

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Greg Stark writes: >>> For another there may be binary-only applications or drivers out there >>> that are using V2 for whatever reason. >> The problem with

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark writes: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In the same line, maybe we should kill libpq's support for V2 protocol >>> (which would make the cutoff 7.4). And

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

Greg Stark writes: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane 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

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > pg_dump alleges support for dumping from servers back to 7.0. Would v10 > be a good time to remove some of that code? It's getting harder and > harder to even compile those ancient branches, let alone get people to > test

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > pg_dump alleges support for dumping from servers back to 7.0. Would v10 > be a good time to remove some of that code? It's getting harder and > harder to even compile those ancient branches, let alone get people to > test

Re: [HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > pg_dump alleges support for dumping from servers back to 7.0. Would v10 > be a good time to remove some of that code? It's getting harder and > harder to even compile those ancient branches, let alone get people to > test

[HACKERS] Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

pg_dump alleges support for dumping from servers back to 7.0. Would v10 be a good time to remove some of that code? It's getting harder and harder to even compile those ancient branches, let alone get people to test against them (cf. 4806f26f9). My initial thought is to cut support for pre-7.3