On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:57:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While there's certainly a good argument to be made for making
> lo_initialize do that query differently, there's no way that we
> can fix every copy of libpq that's in the field.  I think we have to
> consider that "there can be only one lo_create" is effectively part of
> the protocol spec for the foreseeable future.  (It'd be easy enough
> to add a check in the opr_sanity regression test to catch violations
> of this rule.)
> It's also extremely unfortunate that the regression tests don't
> create (or at least don't leave behind) any large objects, as we
> might then have possibly caught this bug much earlier.


> Meanwhile, we have to either revert the addition of lo_create(oid,
> bytea) altogether, or choose a different name for it.  Suggestions?

lo_new() or lo_make()?  An earlier draft of the patch that added
lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().


Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB                                 http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

Reply via email to