Re: ODBC Developers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net]
> Sent: 17 July 2004 22:05
> To: Dave Page; pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] ODBC Developers
>
> 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 problem.

OK.

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

Gborg todo/task list do?

> > 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 odbc.sql is obsolete and removed.

:-)

Regard,s Dave.