On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-09-13 23:39:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The real problem in this area, to my mind, is that we're not testing that >> code --- either end of it --- in any systematic way. If it's broken it >> could take us quite a while to notice. > > Independent of the thrust of my question - why aren't we adding a > 'force-v2' option to libpq? A test that basically does something like > postgres[22923][1]=# \setenv PGFORCEV2 1 > postgres[22923][1]=# \c > You are now connected to database "postgres" as user "andres". > postgres[22924][1]=> > seems easy enough to add, in fact I tested the above. > > And the protocol coverage of the v2 protocol seems small enough that a > single not too large file ought to cover most if it quite easily.
It seems to me that you are looking more for a connection parameter here. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
