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
>> 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.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2008-01-29 19:16:20|
|Subject: Re: postgresql book - practical or something newer?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-29 18:56:26|
|Subject: Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results |