From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Chris Ryan <xgbe(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removing Libraries (Was: Re: Open 7.3 issues) |
Date: | 2002-08-17 15:20:18 |
Message-ID: | 3337.1029597618@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Now, I know one of Marc's goals is to have libpq as a stand-alone
> tarball, but I thought we decided that this _didn't_ require it to be in
> a separate CVS repository.
Removing libpq is impossible since psql, pg_dump, etc all depend on it.
> I don't think we should judge libpqxx differently than the other
> interfaces just because it is new.
The fact that it is new is a strike against it, and the fact that it is
not integrated is a bigger strike against it.
I think we should move out libpqxx and libpq++ now, and also perl5 if
we are going to put DBD::Pg on gborg rather than in the main distro.
We want to ensure there is a level playing field for libpqxx and DBD::Pg.
jdbc and odbc should be moved if and only if their maintainers want it.
I'm not in a hurry to move the rest; they're small and don't generate
a lot of CVS traffic.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-17 15:27:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src backend/tcop/postgres.cbacke |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-17 15:13:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src backend/tcop/postgres.cbacke |