Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Surely sending
> copy data after the end marker is sent should be an error.
I'm unconvinced. For example, this would force a client to parse the
contents of a file it's shipping over, rather than just pushing the file
verbatim and then unconditionally
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There's another question this bug raises, though. Why doesn't the server
protest when it sees more copy data passed in after it sees the end marker?
Whether it did or not would make not the slightest bit of difference,
since (wit
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's another question this bug raises, though. Why doesn't the server
> protest when it sees more copy data passed in after it sees the end marker?
Whether it did or not would make not the slightest bit of difference,
since (without the patch) psql
Andrew Dunstan said:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>One issue is that pre-8.0, psql files were opened in Win32 text mode,
>>so we wouldn't have seen this bug on Win32, but we would on Linux.
>>Because we open them on Win32 now in binary mode so we see control-Z it
>>will show up on Win32 too.
>>
>>
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch is not platform-specific. It simply makes psql accept the same
> line endings on COPY FROM that the backend will accept - in effect it
> makes it line-end agnostic - this is a Good Thing (tm).
Strictly speaking it's not there yet --- psql st
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >One issue is that pre-8.0, psql files were opened in Win32 text mode, so
> >we wouldn't have seen this bug on Win32, but we would on Linux.
> >Because we open them on Win32 now in binary mode so we see control-Z it
> >will show up on Win32
Bruce Momjian wrote:
One issue is that pre-8.0, psql files were opened in Win32 text mode, so
we wouldn't have seen this bug on Win32, but we would on Linux.
Because we open them on Win32 now in binary mode so we see control-Z it
will show up on Win32 too.
true, *BUT*
The patch is not platfo
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
> >>available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
> >>normally only keep a HEAD tree ch
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
normally only keep a HEAD tree checked out. A quick look at the cvsweb diffs
suggests t
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
> available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
> normally only keep a HEAD tree checked out. A quick look at the cvsweb diffs
> suggests the patch sho
Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Should it be backported for the upcoming stable release(s)? Bruce and
>> I were discussing this earlier.
>
> Probably a good idea, since we do support psql on Windows even in the
> older releases.
>
> My personal opinion is to back-por
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should it be backported for the upcoming stable release(s)? Bruce and I
> were discussing this earlier.
Probably a good idea, since we do support psql on Windows even in the
older releases.
My personal opinion is to back-port only as far as 7.4, but i
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The attached patch appears to solve the problem. However, while it
makes us conform to the first sentence below from the docs, it doesn't
comply with the second. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe there's
a better solution?
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The attached patch appears to solve the problem. However, while it
>> makes us conform to the first sentence below from the docs, it doesn't
>> comply with the second. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe there's
>> a better solution?
> Attached pa
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The attached patch appears to solve the problem. However, while it
makes us conform to the first sentence below from the docs, it doesn't
comply with the second. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe there's
a better solution?
Attached patch seems much better, I think.
c
15 matches
Mail list logo
