Tom Lane wrote:
>>I'd think that binary support at the protocol level would obsolete the
>>need for the DECLARE BINARY CURSOR command.
> Yeah, but making something obsolete is not the same as being willing to
> remove it immediately. If we keep DECLARE BINARY CURSOR around, how
> should it act?
The protocol level should win if it is set to binary, but I think the
statement level has to win otherwise in order to maintain backward
compatibility, at least for the next release.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Al Sutton||Date: 2003-04-09 08:35:29|
|Subject: RedHat 9 & 7.2.4|
|Previous:||From: Ron Peacetree||Date: 2003-04-09 05:41:06|
|Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?|
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Ian Barwick||Date: 2003-04-09 06:38:09|
|Subject: Re: Memory leak!!|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-04-09 05:05:31|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down query processing |