From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 22:47:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3E93B3D7.9000102@joeconway.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4513.1049864731@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <24009.1049325358@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E932F1A.80109@joeconway.com>
<4513.1049864731@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
>>I'd think that binary support at the protocol level would obsolete the
>>need for the DECLARE BINARY CURSOR command.
>
> Yeah, but making something obsolete is not the same as being willing to
> remove it immediately. If we keep DECLARE BINARY CURSOR around, how
> should it act?
The protocol level should win if it is set to binary, but I think the
statement level has to win otherwise in order to maintain backward
compatibility, at least for the next release.
Joe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: mail@joeconway.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down
In-Reply-To: <3E93B3D7.9000102@joeconway.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox