From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PgAccess directory structure |
Date: | 2002-05-12 15:52:09 |
Message-ID: | 29968.1021218729@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Keeping a separate file for each version may lead to a lot of duplicate
> code being necessary and hard to maintain.
Peter has a good point: you'll almost certainly end up with lots of
duplicate code to maintain if you try to split at the file level.
"If"s seem to work well enough in pg_dump.
Another potential objection to the scheme as you proposed it is that
any given instance of pgaccess could only talk to one backend version.
I dunno whether pgaccess supports multiple connections now or might
do so in the future --- but if that's of interest, adapting to backend
version on-the-fly is a lot better than loading different versions of
support code at startup.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-05-12 20:06:21 | Re: PgAccess directory structure |
Previous Message | Bartus Levente | 2002-05-12 10:15:37 | Re: [HACKERS] internal voting |