At 21:08 17/03/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Considering that the data we are working with is binary, and may contain
>>> nulls, any code that insisted on null-termination would probably be ipso
>>> facto broken.
>
>> But we're not; this is the same code that sends the COPY output back to PG.
>
>Oh, isn't this the code that pushes large-object bodies around? I
>should think the problem would've been noticed much sooner if not...
It does both, which is why I was also surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
