From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |
Date: | 2005-04-04 20:32:39 |
Message-ID: | 4251A467.9030906@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> I am told that the difference is that PHP gives you a choice of
> statically or dynamically linked db support. By contrast, in Perl, for
> example, DBD::Pg is always built dynamically (AFAIK). Your assessment
> appears to be true for the (very common) case where PHP's client side
> db support is dynamically lnked.
PHP is typically dynamically built as well now. If you install redhat
you have to explictly say php-pgsql to get postgresql support.
This is the same on all the major Linux distriubtions I know of
including one offs like Ubuntu.
As Marc pointed out it is also the same on FreeBSD.
Maybe I am just dense, but the argument seems to be completely moot. PHP
is no different than Perl or Python in this case. Heck even if PHP is built
statically (where the PostgreSQL driver is linked in versus an .so) it
still has nothing to do with plPHP.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ying Lu | 2005-04-04 20:33:37 | about "allow reporting of which objects are in which tablespace"? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-04-04 20:17:59 | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-04 20:36:00 | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-04 20:27:59 | Re: Notes on lock table spilling |