Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down
Date: 2003-04-09 05:47:03
Message-ID: 3E93B3D7.9000102@joeconway.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
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.

Joe


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Al SuttonDate: 2003-04-09 08:35:29
Subject: RedHat 9 & 7.2.4
Previous:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2003-04-09 05:41:06
Subject: Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking?

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Ian BarwickDate: 2003-04-09 06:38:09
Subject: Re: Memory leak!!
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-09 05:05:31
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down query processing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group