On Sunday 07 March 2004 20:28, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:40:40PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > Is this fine?
> > * Allow a 'connection *' pointer to be specified instead of a string to
> > denote a connection.
> > ...
>
> I personally have no problem with this as long as it does not break
> compatibility to the code we allow now.
I searched thr. SQL92 standard over weekend(sunday and monday.. had a working
saturday..:-)) And need to correct some of the assumptions I stated
previously.
In ECPG we can not dispose connection names as strings because standard
expects it. Hence if we need to provide a connection pointer to denote a
connection, that would be a postgresql only extension and such should be
documented and warned for potential portability problem.
With responses so far, I believe it is OK for me to go ahead and actually try
some coding now..:-)
Will keep things posted.
Shridhar
