Re: 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 <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> 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 needs some cleanup, but I'd like to
> > know whether we've concensus on adding a connection option for this goal
> > before investing more time into this.
> >
> > A nearby thread [1] whacks around some the v2 code, which triggered me
> > to look into this. I obviously can just use thiese patches to test those
> > patches during development, but it seems better to keep coverage.
>
> FWIW, I think that moving forward with such a possibility is a good
> thing, including having a connection parameter. This would pay in the
> long term if a new protocol version is added.

> 0001 should document the new parameter.

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.

>
> + 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 fe-connect.c.

Greetings,

Andres Freund