chore: use Java 21 for building pgjdbc by default #3612

vlsi · 2025-04-29T11:28:26Z

Note: the resulting binaries still target Java 8, so the change should not be use-visible.

However, we would use a newer toolset which should result in fewer bugs in the generated binaries.

vlsi · 2025-04-29T12:08:32Z

I think we should be good to go for Java 21 for spawning the build. Looks like the CI succeeds, so we are good to go.
Any objections on merging this?

sehrope · 2025-04-29T12:28:12Z

LGTM.

For anybody else reading this, we're going from 17 to 21 (which like 17 is an LTS release) for the build itself. Testing etc still happens on multiple JDK versions including 8 and none of this changes any of that.

sehrope · 2025-04-29T14:18:17Z

appveyor.yml

+- psql -U postgres -c "CREATE LANGUAGE plpgsql" test
+- psql -U postgres -c "CREATE EXTENSION hstore" test
+- psql -U postgres -c "CREATE EXTENSION sslinfo" postgres


Why do we have to change anything for this when we're only updating the JDK version?

Oh wait, is this because appveyor was completely broken before and now it might actually work?

vlsi · 2025-04-29T14:25:34Z

interestingly, ChatGPT figured out that wal_keep_segments configuration option was deprecated since PG 13, so it could be a reason for the failure when starting PostgreSQL 15/16 at AppVeyor: https://chatgpt.com/share/6810e0e1-9038-800f-acde-02e785eb28d1

sehrope · 2025-04-29T14:45:54Z

That's awesome. Looks like it's mostly working too.

I see some errors for the auth test. Feels like this appveyor stuff has been broken forever that I don't think whatever we did to the GHA environment to work was ever done there too (the explicit stuff in HBA to test the different auth types). If it's going to be annoying to get it to work, maybe just disable those tests on appveyor.

vlsi · 2025-04-29T15:53:48Z

There are still two failures, and I don't understand why the tests expect certain output values:

Here we fail to authenticate. Did we get the user right? Should it be pre-created when creating the DB? Should the DB be preconfigured somehow? I'm a bit lost here.

FAILURE   0.2sec, org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest > mD5()
    java.lang.RuntimeException: Failed to authenticate using supplied user and password
        at org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.assertValidUsernamePassword(PasswordUtilTest.java:44)
        at org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.testUserPassword(PasswordUtilTest.java:79)
        at org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.testUserPassword(PasswordUtilTest.java:110)
        at org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.testUserPassword(PasswordUtilTest.java:125)
        at org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.mD5(PasswordUtilTest.java:152)
        Caused by: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: FATAL: password authentication failed for user "test_password_md5cb54c42fe0974f50"
            at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.doAuthentication(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:745)
            at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.tryConnect(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:234)
            at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:289)
            at app//org.postgresql.core.ConnectionFactory.openConnection(ConnectionFactory.java:57)
            at app//org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection.<init>(PgConnection.java:277)
            at app//org.postgresql.Driver.makeConnection(Driver.java:448)
            at app//org.postgresql.Driver.connect(Driver.java:298)
            at platform/java.sql@21.0.2/java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:683)
            at platform/java.sql@21.0.2/java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:191)
            at app//org.postgresql.test.TestUtil.openDB(TestUtil.java:401)
            at app//org.postgresql.test.util.PasswordUtilTest.assertValidUsernamePassword(PasswordUtilTest.java:40)
            ... 4 more

We get "The authentication type should match ==> expected: <MD5_PASSWORD> but was: ", however, it is hard to understand why exactly something should be MD5.

FAILURE   0.2sec, org.postgresql.test.plugin.AuthenticationPluginTest > authPluginMD5()
    org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: The authentication type should match ==> expected: <MD5_PASSWORD> but was: <SASL>
        at app//org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.build(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:151)
        at app//org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.buildAndThrow(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:132)
        at app//org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.failNotEqual(AssertEquals.java:197)
        at app//org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:182)
        at app//org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:1156)
        at app//org.postgresql.test.plugin.AuthenticationPluginTest.lambda$testAuthPlugin$0(AuthenticationPluginTest.java:55)
        at app//org.postgresql.test.plugin.AuthenticationPluginTest$DummyAuthenticationPlugin.getPassword(AuthenticationPluginTest.java:38)
        at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.AuthenticationPluginManager.withPassword(AuthenticationPluginManager.java:78)
        at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.doAuthentication(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:886)
        at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.tryConnect(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:234)
        at app//org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:289)
        at app//org.postgresql.core.ConnectionFactory.openConnection(ConnectionFactory.java:57)
        at app//org.postgresql.jdbc.PgConnection.<init>(PgConnection.java:277)
        at app//org.postgresql.Driver.makeConnection(Driver.java:448)
        at app//org.postgresql.Driver.connect(Driver.java:298)
        at platform/java.sql@21.0.2/java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:683)
        at platform/java.sql@21.0.2/java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:191)
        at app//org.postgresql.test.TestUtil.openDB(TestUtil.java:401)
        at app//org.postgresql.test.plugin.AuthenticationPluginTest.testAuthPlugin(AuthenticationPluginTest.java:57)
        at app//org.postgresql.test.plugin.AuthenticationPluginTest.authPluginMD5(AuthenticationPluginTest.java:67)

davecramer · 2025-04-29T18:06:43Z

There are still two failures, and I don't understand why the tests expect certain output values:

Here we fail to authenticate. Did we get the user right? Should it be pre-created when creating the DB? Should the DB be preconfigured somehow? I'm a bit lost here.
Yes postgresql.conf has to have #password_encryption = scram-sha-256 # scram-sha-256 or md5 set to md5 for this to work.

by default the password_encryption will be set to scram-sha-256. I'd vote for dumping the md5 test

Dave

vlsi · 2025-04-30T09:35:30Z

docker/postgres-server/scripts/entrypoint.sh

@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ main () {

    # Customize pg_hba.conf
    local pg_hba="/home/certdir/pg_hba.conf"
-    sed -i 's/127.0.0.1\/32/0.0.0.0\/0/g' "${pg_hba}"


I'm not sure what was the reason to have 127.0.0.1/32 in the source pg_hba.conf file and replace it with 0.0.0.0/0 later, so I replaced the value with the base pg_hba.conf file so we don't need to replace them. At the same time, I replaced 0.0.0.0/0 with all to support both ipv4 and ipv6 ips.

davecramer · 2025-04-30T12:04:26Z

I commend your persistence here

vlsi · 2025-04-30T12:45:46Z

Even though I managed to get both PG 11 and 16 tested at AppVeyor, I leave just 16 as each test run takes ~20 minutes, so waiting both is way too long

Note: the resulting binaries still target Java 8, so the change should not be use-visible. However, we would use a newer toolset which should result in fewer bugs in the generated binaries. wal_keep_segments is deprecated since PostgreSQL 13, so remove it from appveyor.yaml

davecramer · 2025-05-01T12:13:48Z

Good work!

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch 2 times, most recently from 18fa7bd to f68a77d Compare April 29, 2025 14:11

sehrope reviewed Apr 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch from f68a77d to 36c17ec Compare April 29, 2025 14:23

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch from 36c17ec to d6a52fc Compare April 29, 2025 14:26

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch from d6a52fc to 119ac5d Compare April 29, 2025 15:16

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch 6 times, most recently from f28858e to 743dac2 Compare April 30, 2025 09:10

vlsi commented Apr 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch 10 times, most recently from 453e9ff to eb72cc3 Compare April 30, 2025 12:01

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch from eb72cc3 to 153bb18 Compare April 30, 2025 12:44

vlsi force-pushed the build_jdk21 branch from 153bb18 to f9c19f7 Compare April 30, 2025 16:06

vlsi added the chore label May 1, 2025

vlsi merged commit 4d273f1 into pgjdbc:master May 1, 2025
18 of 19 checks passed

vlsi mentioned this pull request May 13, 2025

Update google-java-format to 1.24.0 sigstore/sigstore-java#957

Merged

vlsi deleted the build_jdk21 branch May 16, 2025 12:43

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

chore: use Java 21 for building pgjdbc by default #3612

chore: use Java 21 for building pgjdbc by default #3612

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

davecramer commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

davecramer commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

davecramer commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chore: use Java 21 for building pgjdbc by default #3612

chore: use Java 21 for building pgjdbc by default #3612

Uh oh!

Conversation

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope Apr 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sehrope Apr 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

sehrope commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

davecramer commented Apr 29, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi Apr 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

davecramer commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

vlsi commented Apr 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

davecramer commented May 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!