Re: Notify argument?

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
> > > Is it too difficult for it's usefulness?
> >
> > AFAICT it shouldn't be too difficult. However, there is a note in the
> > TODO list referring to breaking backwards compatability with the
> > "pgNotify API". Exactly how backwards compatible do we need to be?
>
> The breakage will come when we lengthen NAMEDATALEN, which I plan to
> tackle for 7.3.  We will need to re-order the NOTIFY structure and put
> the NAMEDATALEN string at the end of the struct so differing namedatalen
> backend/clients will work.  If you want to break it, 7.3 would probably
> be the time to do it.  :-)  Users will need a recompile pre-7.3 to use
> notify for 7.3 and later anyway.

Hmmm,

    seems  I  have  to  get a little more familiar with the FE/BE
    stuff again. Have been pretty good at that years ago.

    IIRC, the FE/BE protocol itself does not limit any length  or
    depends  on  definitions  like  that.  So  that  should be an
    arbitrary  (read  bogus)  usage  in  libpq.  The  TODO  entry
    therefore should read

        Fix Notify API's usage of NAMEDATALEN.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com