> > Is there any reason to use a binary transfer?
>
> If I use textual transfer I'm losing precision. E.g. for timestamps the
> returned string from my table is "1955-06-08 00:00:00". Thus I'm
> restricted to timestamps with a granularity of 1 second.
I doubt this. It might be true for double storage but not for 8 byte integers,
well that is in the database of course. But I see no reason whatsoever that the
data is truncated by libpq.
> > about using ecpg instead of libpq?
>
> The generic database interface I'm writing is part of a basic library
> used in our project. The interface serves as an abstraction for
> accessing different database servers (Postgres, MSSQL, ...). I'm
> currently working on the postgres implementation of the interface.
> As far as I've seen using ecpg means to hardcode SQL statements which of
> course can't be done in a generic library.
No, this is not true. You can execute arbitrary statements in ecpg as well.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
