Kevin Brown wrote: > Aaron Stone wrote: > >>Something without a subquery is needed, as the 2.0 series must continue >>to work with MySQL 4.0.x. > > > We can't just force people to upgrade to 4.1.x? It'd be good for > them. Forcing them to upgrade to PostgreSQL would be even better. > Hey, I can dream, can't I? :-)
4.1.x or better will be required for 2.2 but for 2.0 we have to stick with 4.0, alas. And I suspect 5.0 will be become a requirement for 2.3+ so we can start working with views, triggers, etc... > Anyway, there's no way to portably generate an inline "table" any > other way that I know of, which means a truly "portable" solution that > includes MySQL 4.0.x is going to involve doing something like the > array index trick I mentioned originally. > > I certainly don't mind implementing that, though Paul seemed a little > underwhelmed with that solution... It's just that I'm more concerned with maintainability, clarity of coding style, clean orthogonal apis. I've spent the last year and a half working to cleanup loads of smart performance hacks stacked upon each other until no-one dared touch those parts of the code (i.e. the plate spagetti comprised by _ic_fetch, the msgbuf global cache and the internal mime parser). I'm just a bit wary of implementing optimizations in code that needs overall redesign anyway. > I can create a patch of both types, I suppose, and let you and Paul > fight it out as to what to do with them. Might be a fun show. :-) :-) -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
