Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There is 0 chance that this will be applied, because
> >>
> >>> Therefore, it breaks compatibility with the existing PQ*Params() and
> >>> PQ*Prepared() functions. (Use at your own risk.)
>
> > OK, patch removed, but you stated in email:
> >> On Dec 30 06:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It's not a protocol restriction, it's a libpq restriction made in the
> > name of keeping the API from getting too unwieldy. We could add more
> > entry points with different parameter lists to address this. I have
> > a feeling that refactoring the API of the query functions entirely
> > might be a better idea, though.
>
> > so I thought you were saying that we need to just pick new function
> > names or something.
>
> I didn't say we couldn't do something involving new function names;
> I said *this* patch isn't acceptable ...
OK, so does he rework it or do we?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
