Joe Conway wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Merlin Moncure escribió:
Yesterday, we notified -hackers of the latest version of the libpq
type system.  Just to be sure the right people are getting notified,
we are posting the latest patch here as well.  Would love to get some
feedback on this.

I had a look at this patch some days ago, and the first question in my
mind was: why is it explicitely on libpq?  Why not have it as a separate
library (say libpqtypes)?  That way, applications not using it would not
need to link to it.  Applications interested in using it would just need
to add another -l switch to their link line.



What is gained by having a separate library? Our changes don't bloat the library size so I'm curious what the benefits are to not linking with it? If someone doesn't want to use, they don't have to. Similar to the backend, there is stuff in there I personally don't use (like geo types), but I'm not sure that justifies a link option -lgeotypes.

The changes we made are closely tied to libpq's functionality. Adding PQputf to simplify the parameterized API, adding PQgetf to compliment PQgetvalue and added the ability to register user-defined type handlers (used by putf and getf). PQgetf makes extensive use of PGresult's internal API, especially for arrays and composites. Breaking this into a separate library would require an external library to access the private internals of libpq.

Personally, I am not really in favor of this idea because it breaks apart code that is very related. Although, it is doable.

Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts

Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to