| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption |
| Date: | 2005-12-19 14:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7D9B@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Yes.
> > If FooApp is compiled against 8.0, it will then be unable to run if
> > you upgrade libpq to 8.1. IIRC on Unix it will "fall
> forward" to the
> > new version if it's just a minor version upgrade (correct me if I'm
> > wrong).
> > On windows, it will break with an ugly dialog box. Which is why DLL
> > renames are usually only done for backwards incompatible changes.
>
> So each app ships with it's required version of libpq, thus
> preventing any issues, including problems caused by finding
> an older dll with a different API.
It makes life easier for us. Only then we can be almost certain that all
apps will ship with 8.0.0, 8.1.0 etc, and nobody will get any minor
version upgrades.
But yeah, the easiest for us is certainly to push that out to the app
vendor. Not really a problem for me, just wanted to point out the
scenario.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2005-12-19 14:53:51 | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-12-19 14:12:50 | Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption |