On 02/01/2014 02:26 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
The original patch didn't have much in the way of actual work done,
Without re-doing the work, my IRC logs show that I was bothered by this
case 'E': /* execute */
const char *portal_name;
/* Set statement_timestamp() */
portal_name = pq_getmsgstring(&input_message);
max_rows = pq_getmsgint(&input_message, 4);
I needed to change max_rows to int64 which meant I had to change
pq_getmsgint to pq_getmsgint64 which made me a little worried. I was
already overwhelmed by how much code I was changing and this one made me
If it's just a n00b thing, I guess I can pick this back up for 9.5.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: