FAQ

[PostgreSQL-Hackers] JDBC connections to 9.1

Steve Singer
Apr 18, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I'm getting JDBC exceptions when I try to connect to 9.1 (master) with
the postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc3.jar I don't have this issue with 9.0.


There is nothing obvious at http://jdbc.postgresql.org or in the 9.1
alpha release notes that indicate a newer JDBC driver will be required.

Have other people seen similar issues?

If 9.1 does require a JDBC driver upgrade then it would be good if an
updated driver was posted before we start encouraging people to test
their applications with the beta.





Caused by: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Protocol error. Session
setup failed.
at
org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.readStartupMessages(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:496)
at
org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:112)
at
org.postgresql.core.ConnectionFactory.openConnection(ConnectionFactory.java:66)
at
org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Connection.(AbstractJdbc3Connection.java:30)
at org.postgresql.jdbc3.Jdbc3Connection.(Driver.java:393)
at org.postgresql.Driver.connect(Driver.java:267)
at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:620)
at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:200)
at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor5.invoke(Unknown Source)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616)
at org.mozilla.javascript.MemberBox.invoke(MemberBox.java:161)
... 14 more
reply

Search Discussions

22 responses

  • Tom Lane at Apr 18, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Steve Singer writes:
    I'm getting JDBC exceptions when I try to connect to 9.1 (master) with
    the postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc3.jar I don't have this issue with 9.0.
    Hmm, what shows up in the postmaster log?

    regards, tom lane
  • Bernd Helmle at Apr 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    --On 18. April 2011 09:44:38 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:

    I'm getting JDBC exceptions when I try to connect to 9.1 (master) with
    the postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc3.jar I don't have this issue with 9.0.
    Hmm, what shows up in the postmaster log?
    A quick check with an application here gives the following with JDBC
    loglevel=2

    16:09:47.910 (1) PostgreSQL 9.1devel JDBC4 (build 900)
    16:09:47.914 (1) Trying to establish a protocol version 3 connection to
    localhost:5438
    16:09:47.930 (1) FE=> StartupPacket(user=bernd, database=mailstore,
    client_encoding=UNICODE, DateStyle=ISO, extra_float_digits=2)
    16:09:47.933 (1) <=BE AuthenticationOk
    16:09:47.942 (1) <=BE ParameterStatus(application_name = )
    16:09:47.942 (1) <=BE ParameterStatus(client_encoding = UTF8)
    org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Protocol error. Session setup failed.
    at
    org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.readStartupMessages(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:498)
    at
    org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:112)
    at
    org.postgresql.core.ConnectionFactory.openConnection(ConnectionFactory.java:66)
    at
    org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Connection.(AbstractJdbc3Connection.java:30)
    at
    org.postgresql.jdbc3g.AbstractJdbc3gConnection.(AbstractJdbc4Connection.java:32)
    at org.postgresql.jdbc4.Jdbc4Connection.(Driver.java:393)
    at org.postgresql.Driver.connect(Driver.java:267)
    at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:582)
    at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:154)
    at de.oopsware.mailstore.PGSQLMailstore.connect(Unknown Source)
    at de.oopsware.mailstore.PGSQLMailstore.connect(Unknown Source)
    at mailstore.main(Unknown Source)
    SQLException: SQLState(08P01)
    getConnection failed: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Protocol error.
    Session setup failed.
    org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Protocol error. Session setup failed.

    Hmm, seems it stumbles while reading client_encoding....

    --
    Thanks

    Bernd
  • Devrim Gündüz at Apr 18, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:17 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
    Hmm, seems it stumbles while reading client_encoding....
    This is probably similar to what I had a couple weeks ago. With today's
    new minor releases, I get:

    $ psql
    psql: invalid connection option "client_encoding"

    (I was getting another message before)

    This is 9.1's psql connecting to 9.1's server. For some reason, psql
    uses 9.0 client libs, so if I export LD_LIBRARY_PATH, everything works:

    $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/pgsql-9.1/lib psql
    ...

    Could it be the same thing?
    --
    Devrim GÜNDÜZ
    Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
    Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
    http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
  • Bernd Helmle at Apr 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    --On 18. April 2011 16:17:57 +0200 Bernd Helmle wrote:

    16:09:47.942 (1) <=BE ParameterStatus(client_encoding = UTF8)
    org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: Protocol error. Session setup failed.
    at
    org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.readStartupMessages(ConnectionFa
    ctoryImpl.java:498)
    ConnectionFactoryImpl.readStartupMessages() has this:

    else if (name.equals("client_encoding"))

    {

    if (!value.equals("UNICODE"))

    throw new PSQLException(GT.tr("Protocol error. Session
    setup failed."), PSQLState.PROTOCOL_VIOLATION);

    pgStream.setEncoding(Encoding.getDatabaseEncoding("UNICODE"));

    }

    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while expecting
    "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this, though. If i extend the
    check to include "UTF8", everything seems to work.

    --
    Thanks

    Bernd
  • Tom Lane at Apr 18, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Bernd Helmle writes:
    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
    expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
    though.
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over. For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UnIcOdE
    (1 row)

    versus HEAD:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UTF8
    (1 row)

    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?

    regards, tom lane
  • Robert Haas at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
    expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
    though.
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over.  For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UnIcOdE
    (1 row)

    versus HEAD:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UTF8
    (1 row)

    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that.  It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?
    Ouch. I hate to revert that, since it seems like a clear improvement.
    But I also hate to break JDBC. Ouch.

    --
    Robert Haas
    EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
    The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
  • Dave Cramer at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
    expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
    though.
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over.  For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UnIcOdE
    (1 row)

    versus HEAD:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UTF8
    (1 row)

    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that.  It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?

    regards, tom lane
    Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
    leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.

    The reason the driver does this is to guarantee the client encoding is unicode.


    Dave Cramer

    dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
    http://www.credativ.ca
  • Tom Lane at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Dave Cramer writes:
    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that.  It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?
    Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
    leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.
    Yeah. I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
    note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
    and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
    anyway). Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
    change.

    regards, tom lane
  • Dave Cramer at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that.  It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?
    Older drivers will fail for sure. We can fix newer drivers, but if we
    leave it we will see a slew of bug reports.
    Yeah.  I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
    note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
    and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
    anyway).  Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
    change.
    Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
    the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
    this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
    upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.

    So I'm less concerned with bug reports since people can just upgrade both


    Dave Cramer

    dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
    http://www.credativ.ca
  • Tom Lane at Apr 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Dave Cramer writes:
    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Yeah. I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
    note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
    and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
    anyway). Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
    change.
    Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
    the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
    this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
    upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.
    I don't see any backwards compatibility risk, if that's what you mean.
    Every backend release since 7.3 has treated client_encoding 'UTF8' and
    'UNICODE' the same, and earlier releases didn't accept either one.

    regards, tom lane
  • Mike Fowler at Apr 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    On 18/04/11 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
    Dave Cramer<pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
    Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
    the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
    this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
    upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.
    I don't see any backwards compatibility risk, if that's what you mean.
    Every backend release since 7.3 has treated client_encoding 'UTF8' and
    'UNICODE' the same, and earlier releases didn't accept either one.

    regards, tom lane
    As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver,
    I've taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch
    is fairly straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF8 in a number of
    files including the translation files. I've tested this against 9.1devel
    (HEAD) and 8.4.7. For each database version I build and the tests
    running JDKs 1.4.2_19, 1.5.0_22 and 1.6.0_2. All on 32-bit.

    Regards,

    --
    Mike Fowler
    Registered Linux user: 379787
  • Kris Jurka at Apr 19, 2011 at 1:20 am

    On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
    On 18/04/11 17:12, Tom Lane wrote:
    Dave Cramer<pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
    Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
    the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
    this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
    upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.
    I don't see any backwards compatibility risk, if that's what you mean.
    Every backend release since 7.3 has treated client_encoding 'UTF8' and
    'UNICODE' the same, and earlier releases didn't accept either one.

    regards, tom lane
    As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver, I've
    taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch is fairly
    straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF8 in a number of files including
    the translation files. I've tested this against 9.1devel (HEAD) and 8.4.7.
    For each database version I build and the tests running JDKs 1.4.2_19,
    1.5.0_22 and 1.6.0_2. All on 32-bit.
    Thanks, applied, mostly. It's great to have a patch for a problem before
    you even know it exists.

    I didn't modify the .po files. I doubt this will change the adjacent
    translation wording, but directly patching .po files is only something to
    do in more dire circumstances (like needing to make a backpatch to an old
    branch that won't get translators to look at it before the next release.)

    I also discarded your changes to AbstractJdbc3Statement. Those Unicode
    mentions are from the interface Javadoc, so I left them alone.

    Kris Jurka
  • Tom Lane at Apr 19, 2011 at 5:38 am

    Kris Jurka writes:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
    As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver, I've
    taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch is fairly
    straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF8 in a number of files including
    the translation files. I've tested this against 9.1devel (HEAD) and 8.4.7.
    For each database version I build and the tests running JDKs 1.4.2_19,
    1.5.0_22 and 1.6.0_2. All on 32-bit.
    Thanks, applied, mostly. It's great to have a patch for a problem before
    you even know it exists.
    For purposes of the notes in the server-side fix, could you state which
    JDBC driver versions these changes will first appear in?

    regards, tom lane
  • Kris Jurka at Apr 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Tom Lane wrote:

    Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Mike Fowler wrote:
    As there seems to be a consensus forming for fixing the JDBC driver, I've
    taken the liberty do so at the risk of being shot down. The patch is fairly
    straightforward, just changing UNICODE to UTF8 in a number of files including
    the translation files. I've tested this against 9.1devel (HEAD) and 8.4.7.
    For each database version I build and the tests running JDKs 1.4.2_19,
    1.5.0_22 and 1.6.0_2. All on 32-bit.
    Thanks, applied, mostly. It's great to have a patch for a problem before
    you even know it exists.
    For purposes of the notes in the server-side fix, could you state which
    JDBC driver versions these changes will first appear in?
    This is in 9.1dev-900 and won't be backpatched.

    http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html#development

    Kris Jurka
  • Tom Lane at Apr 19, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Kris Jurka writes:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
    For purposes of the notes in the server-side fix, could you state which
    JDBC driver versions these changes will first appear in?
    This is in 9.1dev-900 and won't be backpatched.
    OK, thanks. I've committed a patch to keep the server from
    canonicalizing a setting of "UNICODE" (but not any other variations).
    That should keep older drivers from breaking, and in a few years we
    can remove the kluge, if anyone bothers ...

    regards, tom lane
  • Kevin Grittner at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Tom Lane wrote:

    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the
    client sent over. For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    The whole area of character sets and encoding schemes is confusing
    enough without accepting a character set name as an encoding scheme
    specification. I'll bet that in five or ten years we'll be
    accepting more than one encoding scheme for the Unicode character
    set.
    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying
    that it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the
    change to canonicalize the GUC's value?
    Can we fix the JDBC driver rather than reverting this? Long run,
    I'd be in favor of just rejecting a character set name as a client
    encoding specification. I think inferring one is being generous.

    -Kevin
  • Mike Fowler at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
    Bernd Helmle<mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
    expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
    though.
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over. For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UnIcOdE
    (1 row)

    versus HEAD:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UTF8
    (1 row)

    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that. It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?

    regards, tom lane
    Am I right in thinking that would be that change committed on the 7th
    (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-04/msg00039.php) ?
    I've just run the JDBC test build on my machine and it fails dismally
    with this very message repeated over and over again. What concerns me
    most is that (assuming my dates are right) the JDBC driver has been
    broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
    that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take to set one up? If
    someone can point me to a test machine I'd happily assist in setting one up.

    As for the breakage itself I'm OK with a new driver version for a new
    database version and from my experience people expect that. I recall a
    number of people asking me if an 8.4 driver would be OK to use against 9
    before the 9 version was stable.

    Regards,

    --
    Mike Fowler
    Registered Linux user: 379787
  • Dave Cramer at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Mike Fowler wrote:
    On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:

    Bernd Helmle<mailings@oopsware.de>  writes:
    If i am reading it correct, it reads "UTF8" from the backend, while
    expecting "UNICODE" only. Not sure what change has caused this,
    though.
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over.  For instance, previous versions:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UnIcOdE
    (1 row)

    versus HEAD:

    regression=# set client_encoding = 'UnIcOdE';
    SET
    regression=# show client_encoding ;
    client_encoding
    -----------------
    UTF8
    (1 row)

    I wasn't aware that JDBC would fail on that.  It's pretty annoying that
    it does, but maybe we should grin and bear it, ie revert the change to
    canonicalize the GUC's value?

    regards, tom lane
    Am I right in thinking that would be that change committed on the 7th
    (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-04/msg00039.php) ?
    I've just run the JDBC test build on my machine and it fails dismally with
    this very message repeated over and over again. What concerns me most is
    that (assuming my dates are right) the JDBC driver has been broken for 11
    days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe that there is no JDBC
    build server. What would it take to set one up? If someone can point me to a
    test machine I'd happily assist in setting one up.

    As for the breakage itself I'm OK with a new driver version for a new
    database version and from my experience people expect that. I recall a
    number of people asking me if an 8.4 driver would be OK to use against 9
    before the 9 version was stable.

    Regards,
    One would need a machine which supports java 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 since
    the driver builds all 3 versions. There's actually a 4th between 1.4
    and 1.5 but I don't recall the specifics

    Dave
    --
    Mike Fowler
    Registered Linux user: 379787


    --
    Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
    To make changes to your subscription:
    http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
  • Tom Lane at Apr 18, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Mike Fowler writes:
    On 18/04/11 15:57, Tom Lane wrote:
    I am --- when I redid the GUC assign_hook logic a few weeks ago,
    I changed the client_encoding code so that it shows the normalized
    (official) name of the encoding, not whatever random string the client
    sent over. For instance, previous versions:
    Am I right in thinking that would be that change committed on the 7th
    (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2011-04/msg00039.php) ?
    Yes, that one.
    What concerns me
    most is that (assuming my dates are right) the JDBC driver has been
    broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
    that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take to set one up?
    +1 for doing something along that line.

    regards, tom lane
  • Andrew Dunstan at Apr 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    On 04/18/2011 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    What concerns me most is that (assuming my dates are right) the JDBC driver has been
    broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
    that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take to set one up?
    +1 for doing something along that line.
    All you'd need to do is write a step for a buildfarm animal to fetch the
    JDBC driver and run some tests, and run it in a buildfarm client
    somewhere. The server code is quite agnostic about the steps that are
    reported on.

    IOW in addition to a running buildfarm member you need to write a small
    amount (< 100 lines, possibly much less) of perl code.

    cheers

    andrew
  • Mike Fowler at Apr 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    On 18/04/11 17:35, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
    On 04/18/2011 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

    What concerns me most is that (assuming my dates are right) the
    JDBC driver has been
    broken for 11 days and no one noticed. This would lead me to believe
    that there is no JDBC build server. What would it take to set one up?
    +1 for doing something along that line.
    All you'd need to do is write a step for a buildfarm animal to fetch
    the JDBC driver and run some tests, and run it in a buildfarm client
    somewhere. The server code is quite agnostic about the steps that are
    reported on.

    IOW in addition to a running buildfarm member you need to write a
    small amount (< 100 lines, possibly much less) of perl code.

    cheers

    andrew
    I've found the entry on the Developer Wiki
    (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Buildfarm_Howto). What I'll
    do is set-up three "farms" on my machine - one for 1.4, one for 1.5 and
    one for 1.6. It's been a while since I've had an excuse to write some
    Perl! I can't guarantee when I'll have it done as I'm away for a little
    over a week from Wednesday and I'm not allowed internet access!

    Regards,

    --
    Mike Fowler
    Registered Linux user: 379787
  • Steve Singer at Apr 18, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    On 11-04-18 09:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
    Steve Singer<ssinger@ca.afilias.info> writes:
    I'm getting JDBC exceptions when I try to connect to 9.1 (master) with
    the postgresql-9.0-801.jdbc3.jar I don't have this issue with 9.0.
    Hmm, what shows up in the postmaster log?

    regards, tom lane
    LOG: unexpected EOF on client connection

Related Discussions