Chris Gamache wrote:
>
> Since we're speaking on FUD, and the limitations of PgODBC under
> windows I thought I would add my $0.50 ... :)
>
> The SQL_ENLIST_IN_DTC directive is not supported. Having support
> for this feature would allow the ODBC connector to work synchronously > within an MTS/COM+
> transaction. I believe that the "Distributed Transaction" that
> "DTC" refers to is the transaction started under MTS/COM+. If
> THAT transaction fails, than all
> the open transactions are rolled back, including the database
> work for that particular COM+ transaction.
>
> Having said that, a PostgreSQL OLEDB component would support
> that implicitly (yes?)
Maybe no. PostgreSQL doesn't have distributed transaction
functionality yet. However nice the interface is, it's
impossible to support it unless we tell a lie to MTS.
Recently 2-phase commit has been discussed on pgsql-hackers ML.
I don't know what kind of DTC PostgreSQL would support. If it
would support XA interface, the ODBC driver would be able to
support SQL_ENLIST_IN_DTC directive.
> and would have the benfit of natively accessing PostgreSQL,
> thereby increasing the level of performance under ADO.
Maybe yes as long as you use ADO to access PostgreSQL and
the implementation is not so bad.
> It
> would also allow PostgreSQL to transcend the demise of ODBC
> under Windows.
AFAIR what the subject means is that MS wouldn't support
MSDASQL OLEDB provider any longer.
Unfortunalety the life of the interfaces MS provides is
fairly short. How short the life of RDO was ! ADO.NET and
ADO are alike in appearance but quite different in nature.
Honestly I doubt which lives longer, ADO or ODBC.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://www.geocities.jp/inocchichichi/psqlodbc/
