Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. Backend infers actual type of param 1 from context as BYTEA.
> Hrm. I was thinking of the case where the backend can't necessarily do
> this, but in fact in that case the Parse seems to fail.
On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What happens if you send an UNKNOWN from the frontend as binary, and then
>> when the desired type is figured out, it turns out to be a bytea? It's
>> obviously not acceptable then to truncate aft
Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What happens if you send an UNKNOWN from the frontend as binary, and then
> when the desired type is figured out, it turns out to be a bytea? It's
> obviously not acceptable then to truncate after a zero byte.
This isn't an issue, because if the des
On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are there any cases where UNKNOWN can be received from the frontend as
>> a binary value? I suspect there are.
>
> Sure, but that's transparent because we have binary I/O converters.
> You will ha
Andrew - Supernews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any cases where UNKNOWN can be received from the frontend as
> a binary value? I suspect there are.
Sure, but that's transparent because we have binary I/O converters.
You will have trouble if you try to inject an embedded zero that way,
b
On 2005-05-29, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyone see a reason not to change this?
>
>> Is there any way we use UNKNOWN to represent bytea literals?
>> Say, comparing a untyped lite
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyone see a reason not to change this?
> Is there any way we use UNKNOWN to represent bytea literals?
> Say, comparing a untyped literal to a bytea column?
We use UNKNOWN to represent the ra
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> For the past couple of releases we've had support for cstring
> (null-terminated string) as a full fledged datatype: you set
> typlen = -2 to indicate that strlen() must be used to calculate
> the actual size of a Datum.
>
> It occurs to
For the past couple of releases we've had support for cstring
(null-terminated string) as a full fledged datatype: you set
typlen = -2 to indicate that strlen() must be used to calculate
the actual size of a Datum.
It occurs to me that we should change type UNKNOWN's internal
representation to be
