| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Date: | 2007-05-24 19:04:34 |
| Message-ID: | 19434.1180033474@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If we're going to include libpq-int.h maybe we need to put it in
> common.h. Is there a reason that our own client programs shouldn't use
> our own library internals?
Seems like a really bad idea to me. I know I've cursed mysql more than
once for doing the equivalent. Also, if psql needs more than is
currently exported as official API, why wouldn't other programs need it
too? If there's more needed here, let's see an official API change,
not a hack.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2007-05-24 19:25:59 | Re: COPY into a view; help w. design & patch |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-24 18:55:00 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-24 20:12:48 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-24 18:55:00 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |