Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: int8 becames string in BDE :-(
Date: 2002-06-07 08:07:56
Message-ID: D85C66DA59BA044EB96AB9683819CF610150CC@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp]
> Sent: 07 June 2002 03:41
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] int8 becames string in BDE :-(
>
>
> OK but as for CommLog and Mylog in default settings, they
> not only mean defaults but also decide if the driver should
> take the log info before connection is established.
> How should we handle the options ?
>

Hmm, good question!

Is there much reason to have the logging enabled during setup or before
the DSN is known? I don't recall anyone reporting problems during these
periods.

The only other example I can think of where this might be an issue is in
a DSNless connection, though I think that if an application wants to
open a DSNless connection, then it's up to that application to be aware
of the driver it's using. pgAdmin II does this - it specifies all it's
required options in the connection string, including mylog/commlog if
required - doing it that way *significantly* reduced the problem reports
I got from people with misconfigured DSNs (and those that left the
prompt at the default and attempted to use pgAdmin I to connect to
'dBase Files'!!).

Perhaps we should remove them from the dialog for simplicities sake, but
leave the registry options so that in the unlikely event that anyone
does need logging during setup or startup they can enable it through
regedit.

What do you think?

Regards, Dave.

Responses

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message babafemi.osoba 2002-06-07 10:00:04 ODBC error - Password authentication
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-06-07 05:32:53 Re: Double error messages