Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2009-12-28 at 11:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And, by the same token, the scope for possibly breaking clients is nearly
>> unlimited ...
> Why is that? Are there programs out there that expect PQcmdTuples() to
> return something that is *not* the tuple count for these commands and
> will violently misbehave otherwise?
It's more the possibility of doing strcmp(tag, "SELECT") on the command
tag that worries me. Describing the API change here as being limited
to PQcmdTuples misses the point rather completely: this is a protocol
change, and could break both clients and non-libpq driver libraries.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-12-28 16:31:13|
|Subject: Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-12-28 16:14:12|
|Subject: Re: updateMinRecoveryPoint bug?|