X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13499DC959 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:25:19 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99870-01 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:25:23 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CDD9DC875 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:25:17 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k142PL3E015246; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:25:21 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Volkan YAZICI , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results In-reply-to: <200602040035.k140ZcR22936@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200602040035.k140ZcR22936@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:35:38 -0500" Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:25:21 -0500 Message-ID: <15245.1139019921@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.103 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103] X-Spam-Score: 0.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/9 X-Sequence-Number: 5973 Bruce Momjian 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 ... regards, tom lane