"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2007/10/27, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> Most of that sounded to me like a proposal to re-invent ecpg. If there
>> were such a large demand for doing things that way, there would be many
>> more users of ecpg than bare libpq. AFAICT, though, *very* few people
>> use ecpg.
> With procedures we can be in conformance with ANSI standard and others
> databases.
[ shrug... ] If you want us to buy into supporting parts of the SQL spec
other than Part 2, you need to make a case why --- the argument that
"it's in the standard" cuts no ice at all with me for all that other
stuff. AFAICS the market demand for ecpg-style APIs is nil.
regards, tom lane