On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 02:25:16AM +0100, Vik Fearing wrote: > > OK, thanks for the feedback. I understand now. The contents of the > > string will potentially have a larger integer, but the byte length of > > the string in the wire protocol doesn't change. > > > > Let's wait for Vik to reply and I think we can move forward. > > Unfortunately, I just did some cleanup last week and removed that > branch. Had I waited a bit more I still would have had all the work I > had done. I'll see how quickly I can redo it to get to the part where I > got scared of what I was doing. > > It will have to wait until next week though; I am currently at FOSDEM. OK, thanks. I thought it only required passing the int64 around until it got into the string passed to the client. The original patch is in the email archives if you want it. -- 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
