Re: OLE DB driver

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Shachar Shemesh" <psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz>, "William ZHANG" <uniware_at_zedware_dot_org(at)antispam(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OLE DB driver
Date: 2004-01-12 08:23:01
Message-ID: 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B87203E6@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shachar Shemesh [mailto:psql(at)shemesh(dot)biz]
> Sent: 11 January 2004 20:21
> To: William ZHANG
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] OLE DB driver
>
> >AFAIK, rely on libpq is a fast way but not always convenient.
> >
> >
> Seems like more convinent than hacking the client/server
> protocol myself. I may come up to a wall later on, and then I
> may reconsider.

Seems unlikely - libpq is the definitive implementation of the protocol.

> >
> I did some of that, and did some ODBC hacking too (very
> little). The fact that ODBC uses it's own protocol
> implementation, I think, is a mistake.

Yes, it would be easier if that were not the case - unfortunately that
decision was made many years ago -
http://pluto.iis.nsk.su/postgres95/postgres95.ODBC/

Regards, Dave.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Natoli 2004-01-12 09:11:29 LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question
Previous Message Robert Treat 2004-01-12 04:34:45 Re: Permissions and PGSQL