| From: | Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOT EXIST for PREPARE |
| Date: | 2016-03-24 10:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | 23320f11-6a4e-4342-80a8-1f1a71bb21f0@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes wrote:
> While ecpg may not be the choice for new applications, there are a lot
> of legacy applications out there that need ecpg to be migrated to
> PostgreSQL.
2016 is a good time to rewrite them. ;)
I think Postgres will be more likely if it would be a little less concerned
about compatibility IMHO.
But I will not insist. My problem with ecpg I decided.
Thanks.
--
Yury Zhuravlev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-24 10:13:37 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-03-24 10:00:48 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |