Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please note that I'm not saying that fixing that issue means the patch
> is acceptable.  Personally I'm not sure that this is a worthy goal you
> are pursuing here.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to propose the feature
> first and write the code later?

Indeed.  For starters, if we are going to try to provide serious
support in libpq for binary-format parameters, it probably ought to
cover more than just integers.  OTOH, I think we've already seen
where that line of thought leads, and it looks pretty ugly too:

Anyway, I'd like to see a design discussion about what any libpq API
changes in this area ought to look like, rather than having it be
determined by who can submit the quickest-and-dirtiest patch.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to