| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "Ludek Finstrle" <luf(at)pzkagis(dot)cz>, pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Odbcapi30.c - 64 bit compiler warning cleanup |
| Date: | 2006-01-27 14:45:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1974.1138373128@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>> The problem with this is that it creates an ABI breakage.
> Is that actually a problem given that apps should link to the driver
> manager (which can dynamically load any version of any driver), not
> directly to the driver itself?
Hm, good point. So the question then becomes whether the driver manager
is expecting this parameter to be int-sized or pointer-sized.
I took a quick look at the unixODBC sources (2.0.4 which is what I have
handy, I know it's a bit old) and got completely confused: I see the
parameter declared as SQLUINTEGER in some places and UDWORD in others.
Anyone know that code base well enough to be certain which place is
definitive?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-01-27 14:55:02 | Re: Odbcapi30.c - 64 bit compiler warning cleanup |
| Previous Message | Antoine | 2006-01-27 14:40:06 | Re: network saturation |