Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Don't ask me why SM_USER is different from the rest :-( > >> > >> If you change these I'd strongly advise bumping the protocol minor > >> version number, so that you don't have weird behavior should you try > >> to interoperate with standard code. > >> > >> This is another thing that should be on the list of stuff to fix when > >> we next change the FE/BE protocol ... > > > Comment added to source that SM_USER length should match the others. > > Actually, I had no such change in mind. IMHO the right fix is to > eliminate the fixed-width fields entirely. I see no good reason why > the startup packet shouldn't be several null-terminated strings with > no presupposed lengths. In most cases that would actually make the > packet shorter than it is now. > > We'd probably want an overall sanity-check limit on the packet size, > but it could be of the order of 10K without any problem that I could > see.
I added another comment at the top of those defines: /* These should all be of near-unlimited length, perhap 10k */ I left the SM_USER comment in because we should document that the difference between it and SM_* values is arbitrary. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
