From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Text format protocol representation |
Date: | 2003-05-23 05:27:49 |
Message-ID: | 1053667669.3037.5.camel@fuji.krosing.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane kirjutas N, 22.05.2003 kell 18:38:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Oh, I don't. I was just mentioning that if you append a nul in the protocol
> > and allow applications to use that instead of the length provided then you've
> > pretty much committed to never allowing nuls in text/varchars.
>
> Um. Well, there isn't any such assumption in the protocol (and I'm agin
> Peter's suggestion to put one in), but realistically I don't see us ever
> allowing \0 in external-text-representation strings. It would break too
> many things on both client and server sides, and the payback is too small.
>
> The cases I can think of where you'd like to allow \0 are really binary
> data, not text, and we now have respectably clean support for binary
> I/O.
I know about the /O part but what about I/ ?
Are \0's handled cleanly in INSERT statements ?
Or can new protocol send binary bind variables for prepared statements ?
> So the need to allow it seems to me to have dropped way down, too.
-------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | You Lun | 2003-05-23 05:30:05 | index on function |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-05-23 04:06:57 | Re: Password authentication confusion. |