Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com> writes:
>> Finally, please reconsider what you say about libpq++.
> Well, it always compiled when it was compiled together with PostgreSQL
> as a whole.
s/always compiled/sometimes worked on some platforms/. libpq++ was a
constant portability headache. This was in fact not libpq++'s fault;
the problem was that C++ was a moving target, both as to the language
itself and the expected standard library. Perhaps the C++ people
have finally got their act together, but it's too late. We won't be
buying back into that morass. Postgres is a C project and we have other
things to do than cope with STL-flavor-of-the-month.
> Anyway, coming back to the libpq++ issue... I understand the basic
> rationale behind the decision. But I still think C++ users are
> being treated very unfairly.
Most of the other non-C interfaces have been pushed out of the core
server distribution as well. The core committee wants to focus on
improving the backend, not on fixing random portability problems in
language-specific client interfaces. That's not to say that the
client interfaces are not important; it's to say that they are their
own projects and need their own developers and release schedules.
If you want to see libpq++ worked on, go join that project on
gborg.postgresql.org and help work on it.
(FWIW, I'd suggest joining the libpqxx project instead; libpq++ does
not seem to have a critical mass of users/developers anymore.)
regards, tom lane
