From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200602040233.k142XIW23988@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: PQfformat() and Composite Formatted Results
In-Reply-To: <15245.1139019921@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:33:18 -0500 (EST)
CC: Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo@ttnet.net.tr>, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

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, Pennsylvania 19073