From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Sivakumar K" <sivakumark(at)pervasive-postgres(dot)com>, <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <fuerth(at)sqlpower(dot)ca> |
Cc: | <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0 |
Date: | 2005-06-07 09:31:22 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E490E350@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-odbc |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Sivakumar K
> Sent: 07 June 2005 09:44
> To: pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us; fuerth(at)sqlpower(dot)ca
> Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com; pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0
>
> Hi all,
>
> In continuation to my previous mail, here is an overview on
> the approach
> that we have taken. We had a few design goals when we started on this
> exercise.
>
> 1. ODBC driver should still support socket mode.
> 2. Use if-defs minimally.
> 3. The code change should be minimal.
> 4. Use a compile time flag USE_LIBPQ to switch between libPQ
> and socket.
Why keep the socket stuff? The whole point is to get rid of it and the
associated complexity and rely on libpq.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alberto Velo | 2005-06-07 11:12:31 | Microsoft.Data.ODBC, System.Data.ODBC, psqlodbc: where's the bug? |
Previous Message | Sivakumar K | 2005-06-07 08:44:29 | Re: Frontend/Backend protocol 3.0 |