Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> 2009/12/2 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> BTW, it strikes me that it would only be a matter of a couple of lines
>> to persuade older servers to ignore application_name in the startup
>> packet, instead of throwing a tantrum. �Obviously we must make libpq
>> work against unpatched older servers, but if we can save a connection
>> cycle (and some bleating in the postmaster log) when talking to an 8.5
>> application, it might be worth doing:
> Given that this can probably be considered an *extremely* safe patch
> :-), I say go for it. It'll certainly make for less error reports
> around something that's not an error.
Yeah. I wouldn't even propose this, except that given the new code
an unpatched older server will log
FATAL: unrecognized configuration parameter "application_name"
anytime it gets a connection from newer libpq. I'm sure we'll get
some complaints/bugreports about it if we allow that to be the norm.
However, if we backpatch now, there will be relatively few situations
in the field where anyone tries to use 8.5 libpq against an unpatched
older server.
regards, tom lane
