From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>, Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Trouble with COPY IN |
Date: | 2010-09-18 20:15:45 |
Message-ID: | 18984.1284840945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, James William Pye wrote:
>>> I think there's a snag in the patch:
> Oh, duh. It's a server side copy not going through the client at all.
> Here's a hopefully final patch.
Applied with a correction: this would've totally broken binary copy in
old-style protocol, because there is no other EOF marker except the -1
in that case.
BTW, it strikes me that we could reduce the backwards-compatibility
impact of this patch if we made it ignore, rather than throw error for,
any extra data after the EOF marker. I left it as-is since ISTM the
more error checking you can have in a binary data format, the better.
But a case could be made for doing the other thing, especially if
somebody wanted to argue for back-patching this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-09-18 21:42:08 | Re: Configuring synchronous replication |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-18 20:03:08 | Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lukas Eder | 2010-09-19 13:16:57 | java.sql.ResultSet.getTime() returns wrong time |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-09-18 02:55:46 | Re: Broken pipe error |