Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, James William Pye wrote:
>>> I think there's a snag in the patch:
> Oh, duh. It's a server side copy not going through the client at all.
> Here's a hopefully final patch.
Applied with a correction: this would've totally broken binary copy in
old-style protocol, because there is no other EOF marker except the -1
in that case.
BTW, it strikes me that we could reduce the backwards-compatibility
impact of this patch if we made it ignore, rather than throw error for,
any extra data after the EOF marker. I left it as-is since ISTM the
more error checking you can have in a binary data format, the better.
But a case could be made for doing the other thing, especially if
somebody wanted to argue for back-patching this.
regards, tom lane