On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-18 02:53:03 -0700, Andres Freund 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. > > Here's what I roughly was thinking of. I don't quite like the name, and > the way the version is specified for libpq (basically just the "raw" > integer). Not sure if others have an opinion on that. I personally > would lean towards not documenting this option... > > There's a few things that I couldn't find easy ways to test: > - the v2 specific binary protocol - I don't quite see how we could test > that without writing C > - version error checks - pg_regress/psql errors out in non-interactive > mode if a connection fails to be established. This we could verify > with a s simple tap test. > > Coverage of the relevant files is a good bit higher afterwards. Although > our libpq coverage is generally pretty damn awful.
Any opinions on this? Obviously this needs some cleanup, but I'd like to know whether we've concensus on adding a connection option for this goal before investing more time into this. A nearby thread [1] whacks around some the v2 code, which triggered me to look into this. I obviously can just use thiese patches to test those patches during development, but it seems better to keep coverage. Thanks, Andres [1] https://postgr.es/m/20170914063418.sckdzgjfrsbek...@alap3.anarazel.de -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
