On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:34:27PM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > >> Application code that relies on the values already has problems though > >> since the returned values are pretty bogus now. Including the fact that > >> it can return 0 as the number of modified rows which is checked for more > >> frequently than the actual number IME... > >> So I think client code that uses simplistic stuff like atoi isn't worse > >> off afterwards since the values will be about as bogus. I am more > >> worried about code that does range checks like java's string conversion > >> routines... > >> > >> I think fixing this for 9.4 is fine, but due to the compat issues I > >> think it's to late for 9.3. > > Where are we on this? There was a posted patch, attached, but Vik > > Fearing said it was insufficent and he was working on a new one: > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51EFF67A.7020509@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > Unfortunately, I gave up on it as being over my head when I noticed I > was changing the protocol itself. I should have notified the list so > someone else could have taken over. OK, so that brings up a good question. Can we change the protocol for this without causing major breakage? Tom seems to indicate that it can be done for 9.4, but I thought protocol breakage was a major issue. Are we really changing the wire protocol here, or just the type of string we can pass back to the interface? I know the libpq API we give to clients is a string so it is OK. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
