On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Regarding the other comments:
>> *) API structure: Our major objective was to minimize exports to
>> libpq.  I think both copyresult and setvalue have some possible
>> sideband usage (footguns or no).  Additional functions could be
>> speculated but are not required by libpqtypes.  We would have no
>> problem adding a few things to complete the api if necessary.
>> The patch is basically the minimum libpqtypes needs and has to work
>> more or less as written.  We tried a few times to suggest implementing
>> the split a different way (basically, more invasion into libpq).  We
>> couldn't get any action there.
>> If the patch is rejected on general merits...that signals the death
>> blow for libpqtypes.  We have a chicken/egg problem...people can't use
>> it without patching libpq which will really hamper its adoption, which
>> is, uh, needed to justify the patch.  For the record, we have had a
>> couple of dozen downloads of the libpqtypes library on pgfoundry since
>> we put it up there last week.  Based on how it has simplified and
>> improved our own code vs. libpq, we have absolutely no doubts it is a
>> major improvement over PQexecParams.
> One idea would be to add the libpq hooks but not document them.  This
> way, we can modify or remove the API as needed in the future.  As
> libpqtypes matures and we are sure what the API should be, we can
> document it as stable and permanent.

The API functions relating to hooks are unlikely to change once
settled on...but PQsetvalue/PQcopyResult are a good fit with your idea
(they introduce new behaviors that could possibly be used outside of
libpqtypes context, and could require changes down the line).


Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to