From: | Shachar Shemesh <psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz> |
---|---|
To: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Postgresql OLE DB development <oledb-dev(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: type unknown - how important is it? |
Date: | 2005-03-17 07:01:17 |
Message-ID: | 42392B3D.4070904@shemesh.biz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Cramer wrote:
> Shachar,
>
> I think with type oid 705 (unknown) it's safe to treat it as text.
> Certainly better than punting.
Question is what DBTYPE to report it as. Options are DBTYPE_WSTR (UTF-16
string, which means the input string must be a valid UTF-8 string),
DBTYPE_STR (just dump it as I get it, and hope that client doesn't barf
on the UTF-8 encoding), DBTYPE_BYTES (it's an array of bytes, just let
the client figure out what to do with it. No promises on my part).
I don't know type 705 well enough to decide which would work best. If
it's guaranteed to be a validly encoded text string, then I'll just put
it in as DBTYPE_WSTR, and get it done with.
> On another note are you aware of any issues with transactions?
> Specifically with using the dated autocommit mode ?
I'm not sure what dated autocommit is. What are the issues you are seeing?
> Dave
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ali Baba | 2005-03-17 07:02:05 | Exception handiling |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-03-17 05:32:20 | Re: Changing the default wal_sync_method to open_sync for |