Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I think you should conduct a wider survey before you make that decision.
> In particular, I'd like to hear from driver writers like Greg Sabino
> Mullane and Jeff Davis, as well as regular libpq users.
Well, the survey's already been taken, pretty much: there's been just
about no positive feedback in all the time that this proposal's been
discussed. I haven't noticed anyone except Andrew and Merlin saying
that they wanted this or would use it.
Currently there's about 400K of C source code in libpq. The patch as-is
adds more than 100K, and it would surely get larger if we actively
pursued this line of development. (For one thing, the density of
comments in the submitted patch is well below what I'd find acceptable;
by the time it was commented to a level comparable to the existing libpq
code, it'd be a lot more than 100K.) That's a pretty big increment for
a facility that it appears would be used only by a small minority of
users. I think that at minimum we'd have to insist on it being
refactored as a separate library, and then the case for it being in core
rather than on pgfoundry seems kinda weak.
regards, tom lane
