On 2013-09-10 12:31:22 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakre...@gmail.com> writes: > >> One of our customers seems to be running into exactly the issue > >> hypothesized about by Tom here: > >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8040.1314403...@sss.pgh.pa.us > >> Was the possibility of an inadvertent protocol downgrade addressed as part > >> of that patch? I read through the thread, but it wasn't entirely clear. > > > > No, a quick look at report_fork_failure_to_client shows it still always > > sends V2 protocol. We fixed some of the lesser issues discussed in that > > thread, but I don't think we ever agreed how to deal with this one. > > > > I've been thinking of late that it might be time to retire libpq's > > support for V2 protocol (other than in the specific context of the first > > error message received while trying to make a connection). If we did > > that, we'd remove the code path that thinks it should downgrade to V2 > > protocol, and thus fix this problem by removing code not adding more. > > > > However, that doesn't sound like a back-patchable solution, and also > > it remains unclear whether non-libpq clients such as JDBC have an issue > > with this. > > It's probably worth polling for that. I believe the jdbc driver at > least has code for it, but I don't know if it's a requirement at this > point.
Yes, it has code for it and I think it's still used pretty frequently to circumvent prepared statement planning problems (misestimation, indeterminate types). So I think we need convincing reasons to break their usage. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
