On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Does anyone have anything against me applying this to the current source
> > tree?
>
> I'm not particularly comfortable with it --- it looks like the semantics
> need more careful thought, particularly concerning when the output buffer
> gets flushed and what happens if we can't send data right away. The
> insertion of a pqFlush into PQconsumeInput, in particular, looks like
> an ill-thought-out hack that could break some applications.
Well, at least we have more discussion on this then the previous two posts
about it, so it should give something for Alfred to address :) Is there
anyone workign with libpq that could comment on possible a better way of
it being implemented?
> I also object strongly to the lack of documentation. Patches that
> change public APIs and come without doco updates should be rejected
> out of hand, IMNSHO. Keeping the documentation up to date should
> not be considered optional --- especially not when you're talking
> about something that makes subtle and pervasive changes to library
> behavior.
Agreed here...Alfred and I talked about that on the phone tonight...I
posted the patches tonight so that he could get some feedback on them...if
we could figure out what needs to be fixed/improved, and he has an
indication that he's working in the right direction, then documentation is
forthcoming...
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org