| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Al Sutton | 2003-04-09 08:35:29 | RedHat 9 & 7.2.4 |
| Previous Message | Ron Peacetree | 2003-04-09 05:41:06 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-04-09 06:38:09 | Re: Memory leak!! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-09 05:05:31 | Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down query processing |