On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Andres Freund <andres@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