From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: PQnotifies() in 7.3 broken? |
Date: | 2002-12-16 16:01:00 |
Message-ID: | 200212161601.gBGG10U01751@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> Do I need to increment the other interfaces that
> >> _use_ libpq, like ecpg?
>
> > If and only if the libpq API is part of their documented API. For ecpg I
> > think this is not the case, but for libpq++ it would seem to be the case.
>
> However, an app linked against libpq++ would also be linked against
> libpq, and so the incompatibility will be flagged by the linker anyway.
> I can see no need to bump libpq++'s own number.
New question --- didn't we change the externally visible PGNotify
structure in libpq-fe.h in 7.3, and as returned by PQnotifies:
PGnotify *
PQnotifies(PGconn *conn)
meaning if ecpg references PGnotify, should it have a new major number
too, so actually, we did change the API in 7.3 and not just the binary
compatibility.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-16 16:12:31 | Re: PQnotifies() in 7.3 broken? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-16 15:51:46 | Re: Big 7.4 items |