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+k8ENYkErqSEYEqW39YWPfe_ii7g5Acm1c9asNuRMriNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1vub8B-000rlS-05@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <CAOYmi+=4QhCjssfNEoZVK8LPtWxnfkwT5p-PAeoxtG9gpNjqOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3626145.1771885089@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOYmi+k8ENYkErqSEYEqW39YWPfe_ii7g5Acm1c9asNuRMriNg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:51:46 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <3635496.1771889682.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 18:34:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3635497.1771889682@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3635497.1771889682%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Either that or we decide that it's time to throw 9.2 support
>> overboard (looks like 9.3 and up are fine).

> Well, while I was hacking on a patch I realized that 9.3 (all the way
> up to 10) is only okay if you're running a sufficiently patched
> version. PG11 is the first to support negotiation for the whole
> release line.

Hmm ... and of course the whole point of this exercise is to be sure
we can pg_upgrade from those out-of-support versions.

> I think Jelte said it well back on the -committers thread:
>> Why only force max_protocol_version=3.0 for beta? It sounds like
>> this would also be an issue once we eventually bump the default
>> version.

> So a fix belongs in pg_upgrade, IMO, instead of the test. I have a
> draft passing locally that I should be able to share soon.

Fair enough.

			regards, tom lane