On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 04:08:58PM -0800, Nathan Myers wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 02:28:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Given all that, here is a proposed spec for the header: > > ... > > Comments? > > (I have also suggested, in private mail, that the "header length" > field should be the length of the whole header, not just whatever > was added on in versions 2..n. Tom didn't agree.) I had the same thought, but didn't get around to posting it. Ross
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Ross J. Reedstrom
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file form... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal Bruce Momjian