Re: A problem presentaion about ECPG, DECLARE STATEMENT

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
Date: 2019-09-11 13:54:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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