Re: unixODBC (again)

Nick Gorham writes:

> First let me say that I want to stop the split between the version, If
> I can just point people to your distribution, thats fine by me, but it
> needs to work :-). I am not trying to get you to standardise on
> unixODBC, just to provide the option.

This is nice, but it contradicts your earlier patches, because it would
create a circular dependency: You need PostgreSQL's ODBC to get unixODBC
set up, but you need [--with-]unixODBC to get PostgreSQL prepared for
unixODBC. That said if there are improvements in your version, why not
send patches to improve our version, rather than providing patches to link
our version against your version? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm just wondering.

> Initially I had to link my system odbc.ini to a user odbc, because the
> driver looks in the home account. This would be SO much better if there
> was a build option to link with libodbcini.so, not saying it should be
> the default, just that the option would be great.

Why not have us include that libodbcini.so in our distribution?
Certainly, no one would get upset if we had better config/ini file
parsing.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/