On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:57:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > While there's certainly a good argument to be made for making > lo_initialize do that query differently, there's no way that we > can fix every copy of libpq that's in the field. I think we have to > consider that "there can be only one lo_create" is effectively part of > the protocol spec for the foreseeable future. (It'd be easy enough > to add a check in the opr_sanity regression test to catch violations > of this rule.) > > It's also extremely unfortunate that the regression tests don't > create (or at least don't leave behind) any large objects, as we > might then have possibly caught this bug much earlier.
Agreed.
> Meanwhile, we have to either revert the addition of lo_create(oid, > bytea) altogether, or choose a different name for it. Suggestions?
lo_new() or lo_make()? An earlier draft of the patch that added lo_create(oid, bytea) had a similar function named make_lo().
