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

Re: Correctly producing array literals for prepared statements

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 (view raw or flat)
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



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kenneth MarshallDate: 2011-02-23 21:01:54
Subject: Re: Correctly producing array literals for preparedstatements
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-02-23 20:45:20
Subject: Re: How to extract a value from a record using attnum or attname?

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