Re: ODBC Rewrite

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>That's not particularly relevant- the question is if the existing libpq
>>>API is sufficient for the ODBC driver or not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And even more to the point, whether extending it wouldn't be a better
>>answer than writing a whole new API (and new library?). There are
>>definitely features of the V3 protocol that are not accessible through
>>libpq at the moment, but that is due to lack of time to add appropriate
>>API to libpq, not any fundamental objection to extending libpq.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>>
> Can you list them, please?
>
> Having based OLE DB on libpq, it would be nice to find that instead of
> working hard to achieve some stuff via different SQL queries, that I can
> just extend libpq to support easier handling.
>
> In other words, I may find that it is easier to implement certain stuff
> in libpq rather than OLE DB. ODBC may be in the same position. This way,
> everybody win.

This is why I suggested either creating a new low level API library on
which the linkes of ODBC, libpq, and I guess an OLE DB driver would be
built, or perform an amount of surgery the existing libpq and isolate and
expose various operations to a normalized API strategy.