Re: 3.0 fe/be protocol bug?

From: John DeSoi <jd(at)icx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 3.0 fe/be protocol bug?
Date: 2003-05-29 03:56:45
Message-ID: 90A6988A-9189-11D7-96F8-0030656EE7B2@icx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 07:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> 44 0000 0013 0002 0000 0005 3137303632 FFFF FFFF
>> D mesg len 2col col1 len5 oid 17602 len col2 here?
>
> Looks fine to me. -1 length means a NULL.
>

Duh. I had a test for -1, but I was reading the length as an unsigned
integer. I'd have to wait a while for 4 billion bytes :).

BTW, very nice job on the 3.0 protocol. Very clean and pretty
straightforward to implement.

Thanks for your help,

John DeSoi, Ph.D.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karel Zak 2003-05-29 09:09:37 Re: Automatic detection of client encoding
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2003-05-29 02:19:19 PostgreSQL RPM's and Red Hat.