MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFCRh-9W8mXh9MfRe-Z5bAcN5FVbsXuSW60-QPVMB1jHC4+bzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1214b740-22de-4151-a3c8-e93e3385c0da@manitou-mail.org>
In-Reply-To: <1214b740-22de-4151-a3c8-e93e3385c0da@manitou-mail.org>
From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 18:55:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFCRh-9u3STo5Q3JbHRMj2cnfBWwwQSN5oubpnnDmQC7Ac4AmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: About the stability of COPY BINARY data
To: Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFCRh-9u3STo5Q3JbHRMj2cnfBWwwQSN5oubpnnDmQC7Ac4AmA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 6:39=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.o=
rg> wrote:
>         Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions
> > really change across versions of PostgreSQL? How common are
> > instances of such changes across versions? Any examples of such
> > backward-incompatible changes, in the past?
>
> For the timestamp types, I think these functions were
> sending/expecting float8 (before version 7.3), and then float8 or
> int64 depending on the server configuration up until 9.6, and since
> then int64 only.
> The same for the "time" field of the interval type.
> There is still an "integer_datetimes" GUC reflecting this.

Thanks. So it did happen in a distant past.
Anything below 14 is of no concern to me though.
So again, it does sound like changes are unlikely.

And I haven't seen anything not network-byte-order,
as far architecture is concerned.