On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> >> Application code that relies on the values already has problems though
> >> since the returned values are pretty bogus now. Including the fact that
> >> it can return 0 as the number of modified rows which is checked for more
> >> frequently than the actual number IME...
> >> So I think client code that uses simplistic stuff like atoi isn't worse
> >> off afterwards since the values will be about as bogus. I am more
> >> worried about code that does range checks like java's string conversion
> >> routines...
> >>
> >> I think fixing this for 9.4 is fine, but due to the compat issues I
> >> think it's to late for 9.3.
> > Where are we on this?  There was a posted patch, attached, but Vik
> > Fearing said it was insufficent and he was working on a new one:
> >
> >     http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51eff67a.7020...@dalibo.com
> >
> Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I
> was changing the protocol itself.  I should have notified the list so
> someone else could have taken over.

OK, so that brings up a good question.  Can we change the protocol for
this without causing major breakage?  Tom seems to indicate that it can
be done for 9.4, but I thought protocol breakage was a major issue.  Are
we really changing the wire protocol here, or just the type of string we
can pass back to the interface?

I know the libpq API we give to clients is a string so it is OK.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to