Hi,

    I didn't think that patching libpq was the corret answer either.  I just
didn't want to go messing around with the backend :-)

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq and SPI


>Uh, I didn't actually believe that that patch was a good idea.  Hacking
>libpq to survive a protocol violation committed by the backend is *not*
>a solution; the correct answer is to fix the backend.  Otherwise we will
>have to discover similar workarounds for other clients that do not
>use libpq (ODBC, for example).
>
>Please reverse out that patch until someone can find some time to look
>at the issue.  (I will, if no one else does, but it would probably be
>more efficient for someone who already knows something about SPI to
>fix it...)
>
> regards, tom lane


Mon, 15 Mar 1999 07:52:03 +0900
"Gerald L. Gay" <glgay@pass.korea.army.mil>
Re: [HACKERS] libpq and SPI 