Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ODBC Developers

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>,<pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ODBC Developers
Date: 2004-07-17 21:05:24
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-odbc
Dave Page wrote:
> Which makes me think - should we add or remove placeholders for
> unimplemented functions? The important thing is that SQLGetFunctions
> is correct of course, however we should be consistent. I'm kinda on
> the fence about which way to go on that one. On one had the
> placeholders are useful reminders that work needs to be done - on the
> other, they do add to the code needlessly.

I would leave it as is.  As long as the fraction of placeholders 
compared to the implemented functions is low, it's not really a 

What could be useful is a TODO file listing missing functions and other 

> convert.c should (imho) make odbc.sql obsolete as much as possible.

I've fixed a few bugs in convert.c and verified all the functions.  
odbc.sql is obsolete and removed.

Peter Eisentraut

In response to

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: David P. LurieDate: 2004-07-19 02:54:46
Subject: error with access 2003 - column "ctid" does not exist
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-07-17 18:56:58
Subject: Note on libtool

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group