Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes:
>> Le 28/12/2009 10:07, Dave Page a écrit :
>>> Yes, still waiting on the new API.
>> Is there something I can do to make this move forward?
> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array
> or two parallel arrays. Do you want to try coding up a sample usage
> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful?
I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk
about this. I feel pretty dumb, but I re-read every mail on "Application
name patch - v2", "Application name patch - v3", and "Application name
patch - v4" threads. I also re-read the "Client application name"
thread. The only mail I see that relates to the new API is the one from
Dave (the one I answered today).
So, can someone point me to the thread that deals with this "new
array-based libpq connect API"? or can someone explain it to me?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2009-12-28 21:39:06|
|Subject: Re: Admission Control Policy|
|Previous:||From: matt||Date: 2009-12-28 21:30:44|
|Subject: parse tree to XML format|