| 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: | 16828.1193494691@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2007-10-27 14:29:14 | Re: ECPG crash - upgrade from 8.0.3 to 8.1.10 |
| Previous Message | Camilo Porto | 2007-10-27 14:10:06 | Re: URGENT HELP about 'duration' stats |