On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:04 PM Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 11/7/24 09:55, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Daniel Verite
> > wrote:
> >> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >>> Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions
> >>> really change across ve
On 11/7/24 09:55, Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Daniel Verite wrote:
Dominique Devienne wrote:
Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions
really change across versions of PostgreSQL? How common are
instances of such changes across version
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 6:39 PM Daniel Verite wrote:
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions
> > really change across versions of PostgreSQL? How common are
> > instances of such changes across versions? Any examples of such
> > backwar
Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Also, does the code for per-type _send() and _recv() functions
> really change across versions of PostgreSQL? How common are
> instances of such changes across versions? Any examples of such
> backward-incompatible changes, in the past?
For the timestamp types,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 5:37 PM Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
> On 11/6/24 08:20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >>From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html:
> > |> binary-format file is less portable across machine architectures
> > and PostgreSQL versions
> >
> > In my experience, the bina
On 11/6/24 08:20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html:
|> binary-format file is less portable across machine architectures
and PostgreSQL versions
In my experience, the binary encoding of binding/resultset/copy is
endian neutral (network byte ord
>From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-copy.html:
|> binary-format file is less portable across machine architectures
and PostgreSQL versions
In my experience, the binary encoding of binding/resultset/copy is
endian neutral (network byte order), so what is the less portable
across machi