> > If it was just that one it would be OK.
>
> I'll bet lots of people would like to see more careful planning about
> breaking link compatibility. Other changes that break link compatibility
> include changing a struct or class referred to from inline functions, and
> adding a virtual function in a base class.
>
> It's possible to make a lot of improvements without breaking link
> compatibility, but it does take more care than in C. If you wonder
> whether a change would break link compatibility, please ask on the list.
Our C++ interface needs serious work, and I don't want to burden a
maintainer with adding muck for backward compatibility.
We do update libpq occasionally and don't keep link compatibility. We do
keep interface compatibility with the backend.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
