2016-03-29 0:26 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > [ copy-raw-format-20160227-03.patch ]
> I looked at this patch.  I'm having a hard time accepting that it has
> a use-case large enough to justify it, and here's the reason: it's
> a protocol break.  Conveniently omitting to update protocol.sgml
> doesn't make it not a protocol break.  (libpq.sgml also contains
> assorted statements that are falsified by this patch.)

The reply on this question depends how we would to be strict. This doesn't
change the format in types stream, but it creates new enum value. Correctly
written should to raise exception when is processing unknown enum value.

I'll do tests against old libpq.

> You could argue that it's the user's own fault if he tries to use
> COPY RAW with client-side code that hasn't been updated to support it.
> Maybe that's okay, but I wonder if we're opening ourselves up to
> problems.  Maybe even security-grade problems.
> In terms of specific code that hasn't been updated, ecpg is broken
> by this patch, and I'm not very sure what libpq's PQbinaryTuples()
> ought to do but probably something other than what it does today.
> There's also a definitional question of what we think PQfformat() ought
> to do; should it return "2" for the per-field format?  Or maybe the
> per-field format is still "1", since it's after all the same binary data
> format as for COPY BINARY, and only the overall copy format reported by
> PQbinaryTuples() should change to "2".
I'll recheck it

> BTW, I'm not really sure why the patch is trying to enforce single
> row and column for the COPY OUT case.  I thought the idea for that
> was that we'd just shove out the data without any delimiters, and
> if it's more than one datum it's the user's problem whether he can
> identify the boundaries.  On the input side we would have to insist
> on one column since we're not going to attempt to identify boundaries
> (and one row would fall out of the fact that we slurp the entire input
> and treat it as one datum).

It should not be problem. I though about it. The COPY statements is
extensible with options. We can support more fields, more rows if it will
be required with additional options. But now, it looks like premature

> Anyway this is certainly not committable as-is, so I'm setting it back
> to Waiting on Author.  But the fact that both libpq and ecpg would need
> updates makes me question whether we can safely pretend that this isn't
> a protocol break.

I'll do test against some clients.



>                         regards, tom lane

Reply via email to