Re: libpqxx

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>> Okay, but if we are going to pull libpqxx, what about the other lib's too?

> Certain things apply to libpqxx that don't all apply to the others libs:
> It is maintained and developed independently anyway. It's new and not
> integrated yet. It's a different programming language. It's a
> non-standard interface. It's big.

> If there is ever going to be any motion toward separating parts of the
> source tree, libpqxx has to be the start.

I agree with Peter's points here --- but separating libpqxx alone isn't
the right answer. We need to pull both libpqxx and libpq++ at the same
time, else we'll be creating the wrong impression about what we think of
libpqxx.

Another thing that would be reasonable to separate out in the near term
is interfaces/perl5, which is not favored over the DBI driver.

JDBC and ODBC are almost separate projects already, and perhaps should
be cut loose so they can have their own release cycles. I'd defer to
the maintainers of those interfaces about what they want to do, though.

I'm not particularly concerned about removing the other interfaces such
as libpgtcl and python. They're not large and they're (AFAIK) the only
alternatives for their languages.

regards, tom lane