"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