Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, James William Pye wrote:
>>> I think there's a snag in the patch:
> Oh, duh. It's a server side copy not going through the client at all.
> Here's a hopefully final patch.
Applied with a correction: this would've totally broken binary copy in
old-style protocol, because there is no other EOF marker except the -1
in that case.
BTW, it strikes me that we could reduce the backwards-compatibility
impact of this patch if we made it ignore, rather than throw error for,
any extra data after the EOF marker. I left it as-is since ISTM the
more error checking you can have in a binary data format, the better.
But a case could be made for doing the other thing, especially if
somebody wanted to argue for back-patching this.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-09-18 21:42:08|
|Subject: Re: Configuring synchronous replication|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-09-18 20:03:08|
|Subject: Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Lukas Eder||Date: 2010-09-19 13:16:57|
|Subject: java.sql.ResultSet.getTime() returns wrong time|
|Previous:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2010-09-18 02:55:46|
|Subject: Re: Broken pipe error|