| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Protocol forced to V2 in low-memory conditions? |
| Date: | 2013-09-12 14:35:12 |
| Message-ID: | 513.1378996512@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 09/11/2013 02:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-09-12 14:35:41 | Re: review: pgbench progress report improvements |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-09-12 14:30:21 | Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM |