|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Cc:||"kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: A problem presentaion about ECPG, DECLARE STATEMENT|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Hi Kuroda-san,
>> In order to modify bugs, I think many designs, implementations,
>> and specifications should be changed.
> I hope the authors of said patch speak up and explain why they
> implemented it as is.
>> Is it acceptable for PG12?
> In general absolutely.
It seems far too late to be considering any major rewrite for v12;
even assuming that there was consensus on the rewrite being an
improvement, which I bet there won't be.
"Two or three weeks from now" we'll be thinking about pushing 12.0
out the door. We can't be accepting major definitional changes
at that point.
If a solid case can be made that ECPG's DECLARE STATEMENT was done
wrong, we'd be better off to just revert the feature out of v12
and try again, under less time pressure, for v13.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Martijn van Oosterhout||2019-09-11 14:07:17||Re: [PATCH] Improve performance of NOTIFY over many databases (v2)|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant||2019-09-11 13:16:48||Re: Re: libpq host/hostaddr/conninfo inconsistencies|