On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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).
merlin
