| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New ODBC driver |
| Date: | 2004-12-01 14:53:02 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4527C0E@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com [mailto:markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com]
> Sent: 01 December 2004 15:02
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] New ODBC driver
>
> > I don't think it would be realistic to mix the two
> approaches though -
> > if only because they couldn't share a single database connection.
>
> Why is this an issue? Why not create multiple connections?
Efficiency for a start - but what would you use each for? Any
application developer is going to expect everything to use the same
connection - how do you direct a 'SET' statement? What about transaction
isolation?
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | markw | 2004-12-01 15:01:48 | Re: New ODBC driver |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2004-12-01 14:49:17 | Re: ODBC driver for Windows & future... |