Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Don't ask me why SM_USER is different from the rest :-(
> >>
> >> If you change these I'd strongly advise bumping the protocol minor
> >> version number, so that you don't have weird behavior should you try
> >> to interoperate with standard code.
> >>
> >> This is another thing that should be on the list of stuff to fix when
> >> we next change the FE/BE protocol ...
>
> > Comment added to source that SM_USER length should match the others.
>
> Actually, I had no such change in mind. IMHO the right fix is to
> eliminate the fixed-width fields entirely. I see no good reason why
> the startup packet shouldn't be several null-terminated strings with
> no presupposed lengths. In most cases that would actually make the
> packet shorter than it is now.
>
> We'd probably want an overall sanity-check limit on the packet size,
> but it could be of the order of 10K without any problem that I could
> see.
I added another comment at the top of those defines:
/* These should all be of near-unlimited length, perhap 10k */
I left the SM_USER comment in because we should document that the
difference between it and SM_* values is arbitrary.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026