Bruce Momjian <pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
|
