X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7EE484758E6; Wed,  9 Apr 2003 01:46:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from joeconway.com (66-146-172-86.skyriver.net [66.146.172.86])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D3B87474E42; Wed,  9 Apr 2003 01:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.3] (account jconway HELO joeconway.com)
	by joeconway.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.4)
	with ESMTP-TLS id 1710092; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 23:22:28 -0700
Message-ID: <3E93B3D7.9000102@joeconway.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 22:47:03 -0700
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down
References: <24009.1049325358@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3E932F1A.80109@joeconway.com>
	<4513.1049864731@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <4513.1049864731@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.8 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA
	autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200304/297
X-Sequence-Number: 37787

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