Re: [HACKERS] libpq++

Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> writes:
> On 01-Apr-99 Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd also like to see a connection method that interfaces to
>> PQconnectdb() and passes everything in a string, forgetting the
>> pgEnv stuff entirely. That's the only way that won't require
>> further attention if more connection parameters are added to libpq.

> Prior to eliminating anything (like the pgEnv stuff), do we know how
> many people are using libpq++? I'm wondering which would be better,
> clean break or a phase out.

I'd say phase out: there's no reason not to support both styles for a
while (just as libpq is still supporting PQsetdb). But in the long run
I'd like to encourage apps to move towards using the PQconnectdb
interface. The idea is to avoid exactly the problem we see in libpq++:
interface layers that know about a specific set of connection parameters
and have to be fixed anytime more are added.

To answer your question, there are at least some people using libpq++,
since we get bug reports and inquiries about it. Hard to say how many.

regards, tom lane