Обсуждение: Production version of ODBC drivers
Is there a URL showing which Win-32 ODBC binary is considered sufficiently stable for production use? -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:59 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: > Is there a URL showing which Win-32 ODBC binary is considered sufficiently > stable for production use? The latest one on the FTP server is the recommended one. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:59 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: > > Is there a URL showing which Win-32 ODBC binary is considered sufficiently > > stable for production use? > > The latest one on the FTP server is the recommended one. Yes, but /which/ FTP server and /where/? The last one I pulled was (I think) when Hiroshi was still in charge, and since then as I understand it it's passed through at least one set of hands- plus recent discussion I see here which suggests that the project has forked into ODBC vs ODBCng. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 15:59 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:59 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: > > > Is there a URL showing which Win-32 ODBC binary is considered > > > sufficiently stable for production use? > > > > The latest one on the FTP server is the recommended one. > > Yes, but /which/ FTP server and /where/? ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/odbc/ Anything else is a counterrevolutionary conspiracy. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:59 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: >> >>> Is there a URL showing which Win-32 ODBC binary is considered sufficiently >>> stable for production use? >>> >> The latest one on the FTP server is the recommended one. >> > > Yes, but /which/ FTP server and /where/? The last one I pulled was (I think) > when Hiroshi was still in charge, and since then as I understand it it's passed > through at least one set of hands- plus recent discussion I see here which > suggests that the project has forked into ODBC vs ODBCng. > No. There is no fork. There are two FOSS open source drivers: 1. ODBC which can be had from any of the PostgreSQL mirrors 2. ODBCng which is a brand new (not finished yet) driver for PostgreSQL. ODBCng can be found here: http://projects.commandprompt.com/projects/public/odbcng Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Yes, but /which/ FTP server and /where/? > > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/odbc/ > > Anything else is a counterrevolutionary conspiracy. :-) Many thanks, will investigate. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
"Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
> No. There is no fork. There are two FOSS open source drivers:
I'm very sorry, but I think that statement is contradictory: the concept ("an
ODBC client driver for PostgreSQL") forked, even if the code didn't.
Noted that the new driver has been discussed at length in this ML before, but
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's been confused by it hence my request for
clarification.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Morgan Lloyd
> Sent: 21 February 2006 10:20
> To: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Production version of ODBC drivers
>
> "Joshua D. Drake" wrote:
>
> > No. There is no fork. There are two FOSS open source drivers:
>
> I'm very sorry, but I think that statement is contradictory:
> the concept ("an
> ODBC client driver for PostgreSQL") forked, even if the code didn't.
>
> Noted that the new driver has been discussed at length in
> this ML before, but
> I'm sure I'm not the only person who's been confused by it
> hence my request for
> clarification.
OK, this is whats happening:
1) Command Prompt (Joshua's company) are writing a new ODBC driver
(ODBCng), which is in very early stages of development. That driver is
not developed here, nor is it the 'official' PostgreSQL driver (though
we are pleased that CP are widening the choices available to users).
2) psqlODBC (the official driver) has changed a bit over time:
- The original driver (ie. <= v08.00.xxxx) implemented it's own comms
layer.
- The 'new' driver (08.01.xxxx) uses libpq instead of it's own comms
layer which means that it uses both the v2 and v3 wire protocols as
appropriate, and adds features such as SSL, Kerberos support, and
.pgpass/pgpass.conf support. This is the driver we recommend you use
(currently 08.01.0200).
- Another driver variant (actually a fork of the code from
07.03.0209ish) is currently being evaluated as a possible replacement
for the current version. It has been enhanced significantly and includes
similar changes to those in 08.01.xxxx, but implemented in a very
different way.
Regards, Dave.
On 21 Feb 2006 at 10:33, Dave Page wrote: > - Another driver variant (actually a fork of the code from > 07.03.0209ish) is currently being evaluated as a possible replacement > for the current version. It has been enhanced significantly and includes > similar changes to those in 08.01.xxxx, but implemented in a very > different way. Is this one also libpq-based, or will it retain its own comms layer? --Ray O'Donnell ------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals rod@iol.ie Galway Cathedral Recitals -------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-odbc-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Raymond > O'Donnell > Sent: 21 February 2006 12:13 > To: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Production version of ODBC drivers > > On 21 Feb 2006 at 10:33, Dave Page wrote: > > > - Another driver variant (actually a fork of the code from > > 07.03.0209ish) is currently being evaluated as a possible > replacement > > for the current version. It has been enhanced significantly > and includes > > similar changes to those in 08.01.xxxx, but implemented in a very > > different way. > > Is this one also libpq-based, or will it retain its own comms layer? Both actually. It will dynamically load libpq to do things like Kerberos/SSL, but it will also communicate on the wire itself, allowing it to do things which aren't so easy through the libpq API. The code can be seen in the 07_03_ENHANCED branch in CVS. Avoid (or beware of) the pgfoundry CVs browser though - it gets confused by files that have been deleted from CVS tip but are still in the branch and shows them in the attic even though they actually aren't. Regards, Dave.