Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixing bug in handling of server version parsing for Postgresql 10+ #784

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

xstevens
Copy link

@xstevens xstevens commented Sep 5, 2018

Server versioning scheme changed in Postgresql 10+. They've moved to two-part rather than three-part versioning. For example, 10.5 rather than 10.5.0. They've also changed the calculation of the server_version_num integer. Full details can be found in the libpq status documentation.

On the face of it this doesn't seem like a huge deal, but it affects encoding.go. In particular the encodeBytea function uses server version check to see if it should use hex encoding.

@cbandy cbandy mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2018
Copy link

@andriikushch andriikushch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apart from tiny comments looks reasonable to me.

if err == nil {
cn.parameterStatus.serverVersion = major1*10000 + major2*100 + minor
// if the version string contains at least major1, set the server version
n, _ := fmt.Sscanf(r.string(), "%d.%d.%d", &major1, &major2, &minor)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @xstevens !

I think it still makes sense to check for error here because Sscanf function can return an error and n > 0 at the same time. What do you think about?

writer.string(versionStr)
reader := readBuf(writer.buf)
c.processParameterStatus(&reader)
expectedVersionNum := version

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@xstevens Do you think we can avoid this extra variable here?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants