Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Josh Berkus" <Josh(dot)Berkus(at)sun(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: real procedures again (8.4)
Date: 2007-10-27 14:18:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2007/10/27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Most of that sounded to me like a proposal to re-invent ecpg.  If there
>> were such a large demand for doing things that way, there would be many
>> more users of ecpg than bare libpq.  AFAICT, though, *very* few people
>> use ecpg.

> With procedures we can be in conformance with ANSI standard and others
> databases.

[ shrug... ] If you want us to buy into supporting parts of the SQL spec
other than Part 2, you need to make a case why --- the argument that
"it's in the standard" cuts no ice at all with me for all that other
stuff.  AFAICS the market demand for ecpg-style APIs is nil.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2007-10-27 14:29:14
Subject: Re: ECPG crash - upgrade from 8.0.3 to 8.1.10
Previous:From: Camilo PortoDate: 2007-10-27 14:10:06
Subject: Re: URGENT HELP about 'duration' stats

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group