From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(at)ttnet(dot)net(dot)tr>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results |
Date: | 2006-02-04 02:33:18 |
Message-ID: | 200602040233.k142XIW23988@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There is 0 chance that this will be applied, because
> >>
> >>> Therefore, it breaks compatibility with the existing PQ*Params() and
> >>> PQ*Prepared() functions. (Use at your own risk.)
>
> > OK, patch removed, but you stated in email:
> >> On Dec 30 06:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It's not a protocol restriction, it's a libpq restriction made in the
> > name of keeping the API from getting too unwieldy. We could add more
> > entry points with different parameter lists to address this. I have
> > a feeling that refactoring the API of the query functions entirely
> > might be a better idea, though.
>
> > so I thought you were saying that we need to just pick new function
> > names or something.
>
> I didn't say we couldn't do something involving new function names;
> I said *this* patch isn't acceptable ...
OK, so does he rework it or do we?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Zwerschke | 2006-02-06 00:13:42 | PQprint under Windows |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-04 02:25:21 | Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results |