> My "stand-alone" means libSQL can be used from many modules
> without duplicated codes. For example, copy routines for raw
> parse trees should be in the DLL rather than in postgres.exe.
> Then, we need to consider other products than pgpool. Who will
> use the dll? If pgpool is the only user, we might not allow to
> modify core codes only for one usecase. More research other than
> pgpool is required to decide the interface routines for libSQL.
If the user of the new API is only pgpool-II, I hadn't made the
propose in the first place. It's a waste of time and I would rather
keep on borrowing the parse code. I thought there were several people
who needed the API as well in the cluster meeting. If somebody who
made such a vote in the meeting is on the list, please express your
opinion for the API.
I'm not in the position of speaking for other products.
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2010-05-27 03:07:58|
|Previous:||From: KaiGai Kohei||Date: 2010-05-27 03:00:56|
|Subject: Re: ExecutorCheckPerms() hook|