Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Some quick notes about extending libpq for new protocol

2003-06-16 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In the old protocol there used to be support for more then one error > arriving, in which case they were concatenated. What is happening with > that? That still works with respect to libpq's internally-generated errors, which is as far as I know the

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Some quick notes about extending libpq for new protocol

2003-06-11 Thread Jonathan Gardner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 02 June 2003 10:19, Tom Lane wrote: > * Better FunctionCall API? > > nah, just deprecate in favor of invoking the function via > PQexecParams(). > I'll admit -- the current state of PQfn is practically unuseable. However, the id

Re: [HACKERS] [INTERFACES] Some quick notes about extending libpq for new protocol

2003-06-09 Thread Tom Lane
Jonathan Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'll admit -- the current state of PQfn is practically unuseable. However, the > idea is pretty cool. I think it would be nice to have a direct function call > mechanism that bypasses the parser. The ability to prepare a "SELECT foo($1, $2, ...)" st