libpqxx

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: libpqxx
Date: 2002-08-11 17:58:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0208111952180.10067-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

We still haven't really decided what to do about libpqxx. The only
argument I've heard so far against distributing it separately is that it
would induce users to use libpq++ instead. I think having both libraries
in the distribution is going to be even more confusing, especially since
one is "old and well-tested" and one is brand new.

The problem I see now is that libpqxx has a completely different build
system and documentation system. This is also not going to help users
find and use it and it's also going to be a maintenance headache. I don't
necessarily want libpqxx to change it, but I feel it would be better off
maintained separately. I wouldn't mind if we package libpq++ separately
as well and tell users that we have these two libraries and they can pick
one. And before someone suggests an --enable-libpqxx option: That's not
the solution to these problems, it's only a way to hide them.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Clift 2002-08-11 18:24:15 Re: [SECURITY] DoS attack on backend possible (was: Re:
Previous Message Florian Weimer 2002-08-11 17:17:20 Re: [SECURITY] DoS attack on backend possible (was: Re: