Re: [INTERFACES] Re: ODBC 16 bit support

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Julia A.Case wrote:
>
> > Quoting Stephen Davies (scldad(at)sdc(dot)com(dot)au):
> > > Not a good example I think. The 16/32-bit ODBC question says nothing about
> > > dropping features. As I said above, ODBC is ODBC: you either conform or you
> > > don't. If there happen to be differences between the levels of conformance or
> > > of performance between 16 and 32-bit models, that would be a pity but not
> > > earth shattering.
> > >
> > But there should be one code tree... With some #ifdef's not 2
> > seperate code tree's. I think this is the point everyone is making.
>
> Its kinda sad when a piece of software as small as the ODBC driver
> can't deal with two different OSs (16bit vs 32bit Windows),

Of course it would be nice if it supported the other platforms whith
ODBC capabilitries: alse Macs and UNIX.

> while PostgreSQL itself, substantially larger,

Just FYI:
PostgreSQL source is a little less than 10x bigger than PostODBC source.
PostODBC source is more than 6x bigger than libpg source.

> can currently handle *how* many
> totally disparate operating systems, from totally different vendors??

PostgreSQL itself can currently handle only UNIX and no /totally
different/ oses.
And we don't even support the oldest unixen (say the one on PDP11
without MMU) with
awkward memory architectures reminscent of Win16 (swapping instead of
paging,
need to manually lock virtual memory). Or do we ?

I remember several requests for supporting at least Win32, but as
nobody was ready to do much about it, the whiners were told
to buzz off and the #ifdefs for WIN32 were removed (was it since 1.0.1
or 1.0.9 ?)

Hannu