Thread: PSQL commands not backwards-compatible
Folks, Discovered some problems using 8.1 psql to connect to an 8.0 server: test_stats=# \l ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist test_stats=# \dt ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist test_stats=# \dv ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist This is from CVS, the day before the beta release. Ignore me if it's already been fixed. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
This isn't a bug, it's a feature request. We've never had backwards
compatibility of psql backslash commands.
There was some talk just a day or two ago about starting to support
that beginning in 8.2; it's not happening for 8.1 though.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:09:03PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Discovered some problems using 8.1 psql to connect to an 8.0 server: > > test_stats=# \l > ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist > test_stats=# \dt > ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist > test_stats=# \dv > ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_roles" does not exist > > This is from CVS, the day before the beta release. Ignore me if it's > already been fixed. It's not fixed, but it's also labeled "won't fix," at least for now. -- Alvaro Herrera <alvherre[]alvh.no-ip.org> Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com "El sentido de las cosas no viene de las cosas, sino de las inteligencias que las aplican a sus problemas diarios en busca del progreso." (Ernesto Hernández-Novich)
Tom Lane wrote: > This isn't a bug, it's a feature request. We've never had backwards > compatibility of psql backslash commands. In the past, most of these usually worked. As it appears now, most of them won't work at all, so we should really put a bigger warning sign somewhere, because in spite of this not being a bug, people will probably consider it so and keep bothering us about it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This isn't a bug, it's a feature request. We've never had backwards
>> compatibility of psql backslash commands.
> In the past, most of these usually worked.
They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases.
Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of
schema syntax ...
regards, tom lane
Tom, > They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases. > Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of > schema syntax ... Yeah, and we warned people about it, as I recall. Also, we had about 25x less users then. I think we should put something in the release notes: WARNING: 8.1's "psql" is not completely backwards-compatible with previous versions of PostgreSQL. --Josh -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases. > > Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of > > schema syntax ... > > Yeah, and we warned people about it, as I recall. Also, we had about 25x > less users then. I think we should put something in the release notes: > > WARNING: 8.1's "psql" is not completely backwards-compatible with previous > versions of PostgreSQL. > I am working on a patch to warn on psql startup if the backslash commands might not work. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tom Lane wrote: >>> This isn't a bug, it's a feature request. We've never had backwards >>> compatibility of psql backslash commands. >> In the past, most of these usually worked. > They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases. > Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of > schema syntax ... I think that example is the exception, and not the rule. All other versions /except/ 7.3 worked for the most part with older versions. I think this is a worthy goal. We don't have to try and go back to 7.2 or anything, but I think most users would presume that psql would at least work on at least the previous version. If it's the beta timing, I can understand that, but there wasn't all this fuss when I made psql backwards-compatible last time for tablespaces. Also, I would think the no new feature rule could be bent a little here, considering that psql is a relatively small standalone app, and, as pointed out, we are definitely going to see people complain about this on the list. A little bit of effort now will make the project look much better in the long run. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508301952 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFDFPHQvJuQZxSWSsgRAgtaAKDbRUWHlrqbtIipJiJjP2TaX9OesQCg2IBe cUDudmot1bIZpWqhtVH/7OA= =E6aE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:35:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Tom, > > > > > They've been broken on a fairly regular basis in past releases. > > > Certainly 7.3 broke every single one because of the addition of > > > schema syntax ... > > > > Yeah, and we warned people about it, as I recall. Also, we had > > about 25x less users then. I think we should put something in > > the release notes: > > > > WARNING: 8.1's "psql" is not completely backwards-compatible with > > previous versions of PostgreSQL. > > > > I am working on a patch to warn on psql startup if the backslash > commands might not work. In case of relenting on the feature freeze vs. bug thing, I am preparing a patch that makes psql's \d commands backward-compatible to 8.0. I should have it out this evening or possible tomorrow for review. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> I think we should put something in the release notes:
> WARNING: 8.1's "psql" is not completely backwards-compatible with previous
> versions of PostgreSQL.
Can you point to any single one of the past five major releases in which
psql's backslash commands *WERE* completely backwards-compatible with
previous versions of PostgreSQL? This is not breaking news.
regards, tom lane
Tom, > Can you point to any single one of the past five major releases in which > psql's backslash commands *WERE* completely backwards-compatible with > previous versions of PostgreSQL? This is not breaking news. Because this is the first time I can remember where *none* of the \ commands work with older servers. And because the error we give is pretty ungraceful. Hmmm ... how difficult would it be to give a useful error message instead of a SQL error? Something like: "I'm sorry, that PSQL command did not work. Most likely, you are connecting to a different version of PostgreSQL." -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Hmmm ... how difficult would it be to give a useful error message instead of a
> SQL error? Something like:
> "I'm sorry, that PSQL command did not work. Most likely, you are connecting
> to a different version of PostgreSQL."
Well, "useful" is in the eye of the beholder ... in particular, if you are
trying to debug a problem with the \d commands, you would want to see
the actual backend message. OTOH you would probably also want to see
the query actually issued. So maybe we could make this conditional on
the -E mode?
if -E: print the actual backend error message, as now
else: print "Query failed, probably because backend is a different Postgres release"
Also, we can *know* rather than guess whether the backend is a different
major version, so maybe do the "user-friendly" printout only if (a) not -E
mode and (b) there is a version discrepancy. If there's not a version
discrepancy then the failure is unexpected and we shouldn't be hiding
information about it.
I like this better than Bruce's recent proposal to print a warning at
psql startup, because it emits the info when you actually need it.
How many people pay attention to psql's startup banner at all?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:05:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I like this better than Bruce's recent proposal to print a warning at > psql startup, because it emits the info when you actually need it. > How many people pay attention to psql's startup banner at all? Aren't there other compatability issues as well? The warning on \connect seems like a good idea to me. Of course nothing says we can't do both... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:05:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I like this better than Bruce's recent proposal to print a warning at
>> psql startup, because it emits the info when you actually need it.
>> How many people pay attention to psql's startup banner at all?
> Aren't there other compatability issues as well?
Not unless you can point to one. Traditionally psql works fine with
other releases for everything except the \d commands, and AFAIK the
same is true this time around.
regards, tom lane