| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Cedar Cox'" <cedarc(at)visionforisrael(dot)com>, "'pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Updated ODBC Driver Download |
| Date: | 2001-01-28 21:21:22 |
| Message-ID: | 8568FC767B4AD311AC33006097BCD3D61A2932@woody.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cedar Cox [mailto:cedarc(at)visionforisrael(dot)com]
> Sent: 26 January 2001 14:54
> To: Dave Page
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Updated ODBC Driver Download
>
>
>
> Thank you for all your work.. I'll try to get around to testing some
> things now. Also, I was just wondering about the version number
> scheme. Does this mean that for a given PG version number
> (eg. 7.01) there could be up to 9999 patches?
>
> -Cedar
No problem - expect bugs though, this is the first C code I've contributed
to anything and I'm far from an expert!
The version number follows what I think was Byron's scheme when he was
updating it reguarly - 06.40.0209 would be rev 9 for PostgreSQL 6.4.2. The
xx.xx.xxxx format is required by the ODBC spec, I just made it 07.01.0001
(note the minor version number change) as it seemed to make more sense. I do
think that 0-9999 revisions would be a better approach than 0209 though.
Regard, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Constantin S. Svintsoff | 2001-01-30 14:25:22 | Getting bytea results via SQLGetData |
| Previous Message | Joseph | 2001-01-26 21:08:24 | Rules and MS Access |