Re: Correct documentation for protocol version - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: Correct documentation for protocol version
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQTrU8XfCoEu615Y+oddBj0ah9_s7JJ-w0zmNJHrmifpmw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Correct documentation for protocol version  (Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 18:49, Jacob Champion
<jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> ("9.3.21 and later" is misleading,
> though; see a60a10338 and its thread.)

That's fair. we can add all the minor versions in that list

> (To
> put it another way: clients and servers don't have to support that in
> order to claim protocol 3.0 compliance.)

Based on my reading of the protocol docs[1] that's not the case. They
(currently) fairly clearly state that this is part of the protocol,
not some optional feature a server might implement (emphasis mine):

> A second alternate way to initiate SSL encryption is available. *The server will recognize* connections which
immediatelybegin SSL negotiation without any previous SSLRequest packets...
 

I think it would be a shame if there will never be a point when we can
make clients default to sslmode=direct. But if you think it should be
an optional feature, then the current docs should definitely be
clarified in that respect.

> or link to the "protocol-flow-ssl" id in the docs.

I think that's a good idea regardless.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-SSL



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions still exists
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Improving display of octal GUCs