From: | Gerhard Reithofer <gerhardr(at)tech-edv(dot)co(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: ODBC driver and Dates |
Date: | 1998-04-18 14:41:37 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.95.980418154848.3469A-100000@at486 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Gerhard Reithofer wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hackers,
> >
... deleted some older stuff ...
> > I cannot aggree fully.
> >
> > In my applications, there are many data imports and exports from the Unix
> > side and Windows side. They normally should look identically.
> >
> > Another way of representing data is often the pure ascii way - i. e. how
> > it is sent from the server (e. g. in the older PostODBC versions). A
> > simple text viewer may be used the display the data.
>
> It has nothing to do with representation, but how data is transferred
> between client and server. The representation is done et a completely
> different level. It is due to PostgreSQL lacking a common universal
> binary transfer format that these problems have emerged in the first
> place - there is no sharp distinction between internal protocol and
> external representation.
>
> I think it was not meant to be that way at first, as there are special
> placed reserved in pg_type for both type conversion functions :
> typinput/typoutput (presumably machine dependent ones) and
> typreceive/typsend (presumably network-neutral ones),
> somehow they are always the same .
I still cannot agree!
I didn't study V6.3 in detail, but at least until 6.2 all user data has
been transfered in an ASCII byte by byte order (not mentioning blobs).
Translation into a platform dependant representation (like a binary
date...) is always done inside the (ODBC) driver. That's the reason why we
have all the mapping disussions - of the char types, date/time, money ...
The main problem of any ODBC implementation is that you have all freedom
to implement almost any conversion as you like - and many programmers,
incl. MS itself - do not follow common rules, but they EXPECT a specific
translation. This is the reason for many errors which are mostly specific
to ONE application in ONE version on ONE platform.
> I think that getting a common network-neutral binary format should also
> be in the TODO. Bruce?
... an old, old discussion - remembering byte order... ;-)
> > And last, some type of mapping table could be used to controll the
> > different *CHAR* mappings between the server and the frontend applications
> > (but I don't have a detailed idea how to implement this). This could be
> > the end of the NAME<>CHAR<>BPCHAR<>VARCHAR<>LONGVARCHAR... discussions.
>
> That would be a nice feature indeed!
This could be a common approach and should also include date/time/money...
but would make much, much work :-(
I think we have the same goal but are just discussing about the way :-)
Bye
Gerhard
+-----------------+ +--- gerhardr(at)tech-edv(dot)co(dot)at ---+
| Technische EDV \ Reithofer / Technical Sofware Developement |
| A-2136 Laa/Thaya \ Gerhard / Tel +43-2522/8726 +-------------+
| Staatsbahnstr. 100 +-------+ Fax +43-2522/87268 |
+----- http://members.aon.at/tech-edv/Info -------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 1998-04-18 15:25:08 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: ODBC driver and Dates |
Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 1998-04-18 11:36:15 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: Postgres and port unavailable? |