On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the bad news. I think we all hoped that enough interest would > be generated for this to be accepted.
I think that's really unfortunate. Personally, I think that anyone who did any amount of C coding against libpq at all would never have any reason to code in the traditional fashion (PQexec, etc). Anyone who would claim otherwise IMO does not code vs. libpq or does not completely understand what we are trying to do. In particular, I think that the decision to so quickly shut the door on the ability to support arrays and composites in binary on the client side. Contrary to what is stated there have been considerable requests for this on the various lists. I am dismayed that throughout this process there has been no substantive discussion (save for Tom) on what we were trying to do, only to be informed about rejection based on an internal discussion. What issues were raised were opaque and sans reasoning or justification of how that would improve the patch or the functionality (move to separate library for example -- how would this improve things?). Our follow ups were not followed up. We would have been delighted to take suggestions. I attributed the silence to general lack of interest and anticipated this response. However I think that those involved should step back and take a look at what they are walking away from here. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
