On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > > This could be done as soon as I come up with a way of defining the packet
> > > > size for the interfaces since this is the newest limiting factor.
> > > >
> > > > Peter's suggestion of backend functions for getting info might be the way to
> > > > go. It would let the various interfaces get the info they need and would be
> > > > a step towards JDBC and ODBC compliance.
> > >
> > > Again, we could just set 3rd party apps to be the maximum tuple size we
> > > will ever have to support.
> >
> > Currently, were returning some defaults based on the 8K block size.
> >
> > Probably for these, we may be able to get away with the values we are
> > setting. However, there are a few things that I think we will still need
> > to implement as functions.
>
> OK, let's decide soon, so people can be ready for Feb 1.
I'm going to sort out what needs to be done to get us as close to
compliance as possible over the next couple of days. Hopefully, we can
decide on some of them then.
--
Peter T Mount petermount@earthling.net or pmount@maidast.demon.co.uk
Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk