Kris Jurka <bo...@ejurka.com> writes: >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, James William Pye wrote: >>> I think there's a snag in the patch:
> Oh, duh. It's a server side copy not going through the client at all. > Here's a hopefully final patch. Applied with a correction: this would've totally broken binary copy in old-style protocol, because there is no other EOF marker except the -1 in that case. BTW, it strikes me that we could reduce the backwards-compatibility impact of this patch if we made it ignore, rather than throw error for, any extra data after the EOF marker. I left it as-is since ISTM the more error checking you can have in a binary data format, the better. But a case could be made for doing the other thing, especially if somebody wanted to argue for back-patching this. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers