Re: 64-bit API for large object - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kohei KaiGai
Subject Re: 64-bit API for large object
Date
Msg-id CADyhKSU_w1aXTAXMD_n6b9BuYKbBc5CyTQjbLrYeS0NddjfTvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 64-bit API for large object  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: 64-bit API for large object  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
2012/9/21 Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>:
>> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
>>> My preference is nothing are changed both pg_getmsgint64() of the backend
>>> and routines under PQfn() of the libpq. Isn't it unavailable to deliver int64-
>>> value "after" the endian translation on the caller side?
>>
>> Right.  If we had to change anything on the backend side, it would mean
>> we had a wire protocol change, which is even less acceptable than a
>> libpq ABI change.
>
> The patch does not touch pg_getmsgint64() and I don't think we are not
> going have a wire protocol change.
>
It's also uncertain what portion does Tom said "right" for...

What I pointed out is this patch adds a special case handling on pqFunctionCall3
of libpq to fetch 64bit-integer from PQArgBlock->u.ptr and adjust endian orders.
It is never the topic on backend side.

It is not a technical problem, but I feel a bit strange coding style.
So, I don't want to against it so much.

Tom, could you give us a suggestion which manner is better approach; whether
the PQfn should have responsibility for endian translation of 64bit-integer, or
callers (lo_tell64 or lo_seek64)?

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit API for large object
Next
From: "Karl O. Pinc"
Date:
Subject: Re: Suggestion for --truncate-tables to pg_restore