On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 3:56 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like a good improvement. As said before I'm fine with either location > for the URL.
Thanks, squashed in v8. > I'm wondering if we should be a bit more liberal in showing this error > explanation, since I expect most servers to throw an error rather than send > an incorrect negotiation. e.g. We could report it on hard connection > closures. Or if there is "3.9999" or "version" or "_pq_" in the error > message. (the message should then be "this could indicate a bug in..." > because we're not fully certain) I think this is a great point, but I don't want to turn a clear signal of "bug somewhere in the server, investigate now" into "maybe a bug, probably just work around it". I don't really want anyone to be able to (correctly) say that you can ignore this message in X case. I took a look at some old implementation behaviors, and I think that if a server responds to our startup packet with either a protocol violation code or the literal grease version number (maybe in decimal, maybe in other formats) in the error message, that's probably a clear enough signal that something is wrong with the server. I've implemented that idea in v8-0002. Maybe "_pq_." would be an okay marker, too? Would this patch result in desirable behavior for a legacy pgbouncer deployment? --Jacob
v8-0001-libpq-Grease-the-protocol-by-default.patch
Description: Binary data
v8-0002-squash-libpq-Grease-the-protocol-by-default.patch
Description: Binary data
