Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> The idea of pgfoundry was that it would be an independent library and
>> could be used by people who need it.
> I don't think phasing it out to pgfoundry is a good idea, because it has
> some dependency on the OIDs of datatypes.
Well, if you'll remind me of the last time we changed the OID of a
standard datatype, I'd put some credence in that argument.
> Besides, it is likely that it
> could be used by ecpg instead of it having its own PGTYPES stuff.
Yeah, Bruce and I were talking about that, but on reflection I'm not
sure that there's much potential commonality. The thing that's most
problematic about ecpg is that it wants to offer client-side equivalents
of some server datatype-manipulation functions; and I don't actually see
much of any of that in the proposed patch. All that's really here is
format conversion stuff, so there's no hope of unifying that code
unless this patch adopts ecpg's choices of client-side representation
(which I believe are mostly Informix legacy choices, so I'm not sure we
want that).
regards, tom lane
