On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> 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: >>>> 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). > >>> 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. > > Note that I was proposing removing libpq's support for V2 connections. > Not the backend's.
Oh. I blame the fact that we call the backend site libpq as well :) Anyway. In that case, it seems a lot more reasonable. But definitely not something backpatchable. But it's been a very long time since we had a supported backend version that didn't speak v3. The possible thing to consider there is if there's a common pg fork that uses v2 only, that would then no longer be compatible with the standard libpq. I have no idea if such a thing exists, and I'm not sure we even care if it does, given how far behind they're lagging in that case... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
