On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-20 01:32:36 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 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.
FWIW, I think that moving forward with such a possibility is a good
thing, including having a connection parameter. This would pay in the
long term if a new protocol version is added. 0001 should document the
new parameter.
+ if (conn->forced_protocol_version != NULL)
+ {
+ conn->pversion = atoi(conn->forced_protocol_version);
+ }
This should check for strlen > 0 as well.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
