From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>,
 pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: pgsql: libpq: Grease the protocol by default
In-reply-to: 
 <CAOYmi+=4QhCjssfNEoZVK8LPtWxnfkwT5p-PAeoxtG9gpNjqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1vub8B-000rlS-05@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <CAOYmi+=4QhCjssfNEoZVK8LPtWxnfkwT5p-PAeoxtG9gpNjqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Mon, 23 Feb 2026 13:17:05 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3626144.1771885089.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 17:18:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3626145.1771885089@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3626145.1771885089%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

[ moving discussion to -hackers ]

Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> crake is angry:

>> pg_dumpall: error: connection to server on socket "/home/andrew/bf/root=
/tmp/buildfarm-onigY7/.s.PGSQL.5670" failed: FATAL: unsupported frontend p=
rotocol 3.9999: server supports 1.0 to 3.0
>> This indicates a bug in either the server being contacted
>> or a proxy handling the connection. Please consider
>> ...

> So while this is kind of a nice result, in that it's correctly
> diagnosing the problem, I need to add max_protocol_version=3D3.0 to the
> connection strings for these upgrades during beta.

Either that or we decide that it's time to throw 9.2 support
overboard (looks like 9.3 and up are fine).

If it's not hard to add the connection option to this test, let's do
that --- but if it is a problem, I wouldn't shed too many tears over
moving the oldest-old-version goalpost.  I think we might not be able
to fix the test without changing buildfarm client script and/or
configuration.

			regards, tom lane