| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpqxx |
| Date: | 2002-08-13 20:16:38 |
| Message-ID: | D85C66DA59BA044EB96AB9683819CF6113807E@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 13 August 2002 18:24
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpqxx
>
>
> JDBC and ODBC are almost separate projects already, and
> perhaps should be cut loose so they can have their own
> release cycles. I'd defer to the maintainers of those
> interfaces about what they want to do, though.
I've been thinking for some time that ODBC should be split. We have been
doing our own releases of the Win32 binaries and packages for some time
- I don't remember them ever coinciding with PostgreSQL release. I'm not
even sure what state the code has been in in recent PostgreSQL releases,
I guess it's quite possible that people that have compiled from the
tarball are using code that is from between the independent releases.
Hiroshi might know more about this.
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-13 20:32:04 | Re: Everything is now "required by the database system" |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-08-13 20:10:51 | Re: Temporary Views |