| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Date: | 2009-11-30 03:01:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1259550119.3355.45.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 18:53 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> > What if the network buffer is flushed in the middle of a line? Is that
> > possible, or is there a guard against that somewhere?
>
> What do you mean? They both catenate onto one stream of bytes, it
> shouldn't matter where the flush boundaries are...
Nevermind, for some reason I thought you were talking about interleaving
the data rather than concatenating.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2009-11-30 03:18:22 | Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-30 02:57:11 | Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication |