| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correctly producing array literals for prepared statements |
| Date: | 2011-02-23 20:50:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4D657306.3060304@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/23/2011 02:21 PM, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>
>> Binary mode had serious limitations, such as portability.
>>
>
> What are the other limitations?
>
> As far as portability is concerned, we are using it on many different
> operating systems and architectures without issue. Even our most
> recent bump to 9.0.1 and 9.0.3 was flawless in regard to
> libpq/libpqtypes.
It's probably fine if you can control both ends. But there is no
guarantee of portability, nor does it seem likely to me there ever will
be, so I don't find your assertion terribly useful. The fact that it
hasn't broken for you doesn't mean it can't or won't be.
The other downside I see is that binary protocols are often a lot harder
to debug, but maybe that's just me.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2011-02-23 21:01:54 | Re: Correctly producing array literals for prepared statements |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-02-23 20:45:20 | Re: How to extract a value from a record using attnum or attname? |