"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2007/10/27, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to