| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |
| Date: | 2006-08-25 18:30:19 |
| Message-ID: | 4047.1156530619@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree with Martijn that putting these into libpq's API
>> seems like useless clutter.
> Where else to put it? We need it in libpq anyway if we want this
> behavior in all client applications (by default).
Having the code in libpq doesn't necessarily mean exposing it to the
outside world. I can't see a reason for these to be in the API at all.
Possibly we could avoid the duplication-of-source-code issue by putting
the code in libpgport, or someplace, whence both initdb and libpq could
get at it?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-08-25 18:37:11 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 18:13:39 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-08-25 18:37:11 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-25 18:13:39 | Re: [GENERAL] invalid byte sequence ? |