On Sun, Nov 10, 2024, at 23:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joel Jacobson" writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2024, at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> That seems like a hack, as it also changes the behavior w.r.t.
>>> prompts and EOF-mark detection, neither for the better.
>
>> Hmm, in what way does it change the behav
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2024, at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems like a hack, as it also changes the behavior w.r.t.
>> prompts and EOF-mark detection, neither for the better.
> Hmm, in what way does it change the behavior?
> I ran almost all the tests, including the TAP on
On Sun, Nov 10, 2024, at 22:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joel Jacobson" writes:
>> Fix by adjusting handleCopyIn() to use the binary code path also when the
>> copy
>> source is a file (i.e., copystream != pset.cur_cmd_source), even in textual
>> copies.
>
> That seems like a hack, as it also changes t
"Joel Jacobson" writes:
> Fix by adjusting handleCopyIn() to use the binary code path also when the copy
> source is a file (i.e., copystream != pset.cur_cmd_source), even in textual
> copies.
That seems like a hack, as it also changes the behavior w.r.t.
prompts and EOF-mark detection, neither f
