On 07/22/2011 09:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> OP of this thread:
>> It is letting pgsql use URI syntax.
> Sorry, I missed that the first time.
> IMHO, it seems like it would be simpler to do that by rolling our own
> code rather than importing someone else's.
I guess it would depend on how full featured we want the code. The
library provides validation of various things that rolling our own code
likely wouldn't. I mean, it is a library just like libssl or any other
I would imagine that rolling our own code would likely be simpler but
the code itself would be dumber (not bad, just not as capable) and we
would be duplicating the effort of an already established project. Do we
really want to do that?
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
The PostgreSQL Conference - http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
@cmdpromptinc - @postgresconf - 509-416-6579
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-07-22 17:34:39|
|Subject: Re: pg_class.relistemp |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-07-22 16:45:39|
|Subject: Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper|