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

Re: OT - pg perl DBI question

From: "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: OT - pg perl DBI question
Date: 2008-01-29 18:56:35
Message-ID: EE25D5CE-C800-4B4E-A23C-868962F74442@themactionfaction.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Jan 29, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:14:28AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't trust that library or anything that depends on it if I  
>> were
>> you.  It's been unmaintained for a *very* long time.
>
> Because code rusts when it's sitting around on a hard drive?
>
> Pg.pm doesn't get much attention, I agree, but I've actually never  
> run into
> a (n undocumented) bug with it.  Also, for simple Perl access for
> Postgres-dedicated use, DBI can be a little heavyweight.
>

You mean other than the fact that it doesn't support the V3 protocol,  
doesn't support escaping parameters, is a one-for-one wrapper for the  
libpq from eight years ago (and has never been updated since), there  
is a timing bug from 4 years ago still open (http://rt.cpan.org/ 
Public/Bug/Display.html?id=3177), and the docs include zingers like
"Starting with postgresql-6.5 it is required to use large objects  
only inside a transaction"?

The postgresql from eight years ago is also quite rusty.

Cheers,
M

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-01-29 19:16:20
Subject: Re: postgresql book - practical or something newer?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-29 18:56:26
Subject: Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group