Re: Updates via ODBC commands

Ludek Finstrle wrote:

>>I have found the same problem - or even missing feature in the new driver.
>>But why the developers of the driver are dropping working features ?
>>
>>
>
>They don't want. But there is a lot of reasons leads to the current
>state. Hiroshi left the project at first. No one else understand the
>ODBC driver code. The updateable cursor is the most blind part
>without comments (or so few comments that we don't understand it).
>
>
Actually, at the time I did dive into it and got some sense from it (as
I said - it was responsible for a huge performance penalty). I may have
been too busy on PgOleDb at the time to assist.

I doubt my assitance would have helped anyways. The updateable cursor
implementation in psqlODBC was fundumentally broken. It heavilly relied
on the oid and tid fields, which meant that you could not query views
unless you explicitly defined the query as "static". The actual query
was also done one row at a time (hence the performance penalty mentioned
above). What I'm saying is that a rewrite would have had to happen even
if the code was understood.

>I don't see you help us. You are only the judge (it's the easiest role,
>isn't it?).
>
>
I'm, generally, with Ludek on this one. psqlODBC is free software. With
freedom comes responsibility. No one asked you to pay for your use of
the driver, but no one owes you anything in return. If you really need
this feature, you had better be prepared to either develop it yourself
or sponsor its development.

I know this seems like a tough lesson to learn, but it's an important
one. If you re-read the thread you will notice that asking a factual
question (i.e. - "was support for updateable cursors removed?", or even
"why was it removed", if phrased politely enough) will get answered, but
a complaint ("how dare you remove it?") will not be looked upon kindly.
If the realities of an open source project seem too harsh for you, feel
free to hire a consultant to do the communication with the list on your
behalf, and get into the code in case no answer comes. With the lack of
care comes, of course, the price tag for the consultant's time. That is
the tradeoff that free software offers.

It so happens that I run a company that offers such a service, but
before I'm accused of pluggin my own services,
http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support has a very long
list of companies who will love to offer you such a service. In fact,
maybe it's time I register Lingnu there....

>>Its a bad idea to tell the user to use an old version,
>>because my application only works with that.
>>
>>
>
>Do you have better idea? Then welcome and say it to us. But please be
>constructive. I'm working on the project for two months and I see no
>other helper instead Dave and Anoop. I see few other helper for long
>time in pgsql-odbc mailing list.
>
>
Sadly, such are the realities of most open source projects, Ludek.
Better accept it, or you will become bitter. Allow me to let you in on a
little secret - getting help from two people is considered a lot. NONE
of the FOSS projects I started ever got any real help from anyone.

>>I just have done a look at the website and did not see any comments
>>about that.
>>
>>
>
>This is true. Are you volunteer to maintain the web pages? We don't
>have time for it. I can't follow bug fixing. So web pages isn't in
>my focus.
>
>
To rephrase what Ludek is saying, the web site is indeed out of date. If
you have the time and skill to help with that, your time contribution
would be greatly appreciated.

>>If this is really missing, all users relying on updateable
>>cursors, are irritated.
>>
>>
>I'm irritated from you. May I stop developing the psqlODBC project?
>On the other side feel free to repair updateable cursors. What does
>defends you?
>
>
Again, allowing myself to paraphrase Ludek, don't look a gift horse in
the mouth (but do make sure there are no greek hiding inside). Some of
the people working on the complex set of code that is Postgresql and
related software are volunteers. Some are doing so under specific focus.
It is the unfortunate state of affairs that not all features are
addressed as quickly as everyone would want them to. People's irritation
has nothing to do with it, as I'm sure Ludek is willing to send each and
every one of them a complete refund of the money they paid him, twice
over for making them feel better.

If this feature is important to you, you *may* be in luck and my client
will choose to sponsor my work on it. If that doesn't happen, you can
round up all the parties that are irritated, have every one of them pay
some money, and gather enough money to sponsor it yourself. If there
truely are that many people waiting for this feature, each should have
to pay more than, say, 200$. That's not much to pay for unlimited seats
unlimited installation servers license for a fully ACID complient database.

>>Also I identified little problems - or differences in using 8.x
>>version with the cursor library. I must retry that to report it.
>>
>>
>
>No you don't must. Feel free to fix it ant send us the patch which
>solve the problem.
>
>
Actually, feel free to file a focused reproduceable bug report as well.
They are, usually, just as useful as actual patches. Just bear in mind
that it is possible that you will file a very reasonable bug report, and
no one will get around to looking at it after all.

Shachar