On Sunday 07 March 2004 20:28, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 07:40:40PM +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > Is this fine? > > * Allow a 'connection *' pointer to be specified instead of a string to > > denote a connection. > > ... > > I personally have no problem with this as long as it does not break > compatibility to the code we allow now.
I searched thr. SQL92 standard over weekend(sunday and monday.. had a working saturday..:-)) And need to correct some of the assumptions I stated previously. In ECPG we can not dispose connection names as strings because standard expects it. Hence if we need to provide a connection pointer to denote a connection, that would be a postgresql only extension and such should be documented and warned for potential portability problem. With responses so far, I believe it is OK for me to go ahead and actually try some coding now..:-) Will keep things posted. Shridhar ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org