V2 protocol -> 8.1 server

Started by Kris Jurkaalmost 21 years ago4 messagesbugs
Jump to latest
#1Kris Jurka
books@ejurka.com

The 8.1 server doesn't work when issuing queries using the v2 protocol,
notably the isnull bitmask in the DataRow message is incorrect. I suspect
the problem is with this commit:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-03/msg00224.php

I've attached the tcpdump output from establishing a connection with the
JDBC driver using the V2 protocol to a 7.4 and an 8.1 server. In the 7.4
server after the 'D' message is c0 while 8.1 has 00 as the next byte.

Kris Jurka

#2Kris Jurka
books@ejurka.com
In reply to: Kris Jurka (#1)
Re: V2 protocol -> 8.1 server

With the promised files this time.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Kris Jurka wrote:

Show quoted text

The 8.1 server doesn't work when issuing queries using the v2 protocol,
notably the isnull bitmask in the DataRow message is incorrect. I suspect
the problem is with this commit:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-03/msg00224.php

I've attached the tcpdump output from establishing a connection with the
JDBC driver using the V2 protocol to a 7.4 and an 8.1 server. In the 7.4
server after the 'D' message is c0 while 8.1 has 00 as the next byte.

Kris Jurka

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Attachments:

74.txttext/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name=74.txtDownload
81.txttext/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name=81.txtDownload
#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Kris Jurka (#1)
Re: V2 protocol -> 8.1 server

Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:

The 8.1 server doesn't work when issuing queries using the v2 protocol,

Yeah, looks like I broke something :-( ... will fix tomorrow.

regards, tom lane

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Kris Jurka (#1)
Re: V2 protocol -> 8.1 server

Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:

The 8.1 server doesn't work when issuing queries using the v2 protocol,
notably the isnull bitmask in the DataRow message is incorrect. I suspect
the problem is with this commit:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-03/msg00224.php

Yup, I broke it there :-(. Fixed --- thanks for the report!

regards, tom lane