On Sat, Feb  1, 2014 at 02:25:16AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > OK, thanks for the feedback.  I understand now.  The contents of the
> > string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of
> > the string in the wire protocol doesn't change.
> >
> > Let's wait for Vik to reply and I think we can move forward.
> Unfortunately, I just did some cleanup last week and removed that
> branch.  Had I waited a bit more I still would have had all the work I
> had done.  I'll see how quickly I can redo it to get to the part where I
> got scared of what I was doing.
> It will have to wait until next week though; I am currently at FOSDEM.

OK, thanks.  I thought it only required passing the int64 around until
it got into the string passed to the client.  The original patch is in
the email archives if you want it.

  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