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
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: |