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

Re: ODBC Rewrite

From: markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
To: "Shachar Shemesh" <psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com,pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ODBC Rewrite
Date: 2004-12-07 21:55:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-odbc
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>>>That's not particularly relevant- the question is if the existing libpq
>>>API is sufficient for the ODBC driver or not.
>>And even more to the point, whether extending it wouldn't be a better
>>answer than writing a whole new API (and new library?).  There are
>>definitely features of the V3 protocol that are not accessible through
>>libpq at the moment, but that is due to lack of time to add appropriate
>>API to libpq, not any fundamental objection to extending libpq.
>>			regards, tom lane
> Can you list them, please?
> Having based OLE DB on libpq, it would be nice to find that instead of
> working hard to achieve some stuff via different SQL queries, that I can
> just extend libpq to support easier handling.
> In other words, I may find that it is easier to implement certain stuff
> in libpq rather than OLE DB. ODBC may be in the same position. This way,
> everybody win.

This is why I suggested either creating a new low level API library on
which the linkes of ODBC, libpq, and I guess an OLE DB driver would be
built, or perform an amount of surgery the existing libpq and isolate and
expose various operations to a normalized API strategy.

In response to


pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2004-12-08 03:24:59
Subject: Re: ODBC Rewrite
Previous:From: Shachar ShemeshDate: 2004-12-07 21:24:32
Subject: Re: ODBC Rewrite

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group