On Fri, 22 May 2015 11:27:49 -0500 Dennis Jenkins <dennis.jenkins.75@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Alban Hertroys <haramrae@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 22 May 2015 at 04:46, Bill Moran <wmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> With all that being said, if I were to build a patch, would it be likely > > >> to be accepted into core? > > How feasible would it be to write a network proxy, like pg_bouncer, to > handle converting the values on the fly, so that you need to change neither > your original code base (with respect to this issue), nor change PostgreSQL > itself? Certainly feasible, but absolutely undesirable. The system I'm working on is needlessly complex as it is ... I'd rather convince my bosses to let me rewrite 80,000 lines of code than add another compatibility shim to the mess. I brought it up because I saw an opportunity to benefit my employer and the PostgreSQL community at the same time. I have about 4 fallback plans if there's a reason not to do this one. Quite frankly, adding a compatibility shim isn't even on that list. -- Bill Moran -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
