On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:42:44PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > You seem to be talking about a much broader set of problems to solve.
>
> I'd like to improve the API in general to cover a set of use-cases that
> I've run into quite a few times (and apparently some others have too as
> other DBs offer a similar API). I'd also like the ODBC driver to be
> able to use libpq instead of having its own implementation of the
> wireline protocol. I was hoping these would overlap but it's possible
> they won't in which case it might be sensible to add two new metheds to
> the API (though I'm sure to get flak about that idea).
Well, the psqlODBC driver apparently ran into a number of problems with
libpq that resulted in them not using it for their purpose. Given libpq
primary purpose is to connect to PostgreSQL, it failing at that is
something that should be fixed.
The problem you're trying to solve is also important, it would be nice
to find a good solution to that. I'm just not sure if it was relevent
to the decision to bypass libpq.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.