2010/3/12 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no>:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Any such platform would already be contending with plpgsql not working,
>> encoding conversion not working, etc etc. It's barely conceivable that
>> a client-only installation would be useful.
>
> Uh, I don't understand why it's so hard to conceive that someone might
> need the client library to access a database running on one machine from
> an application running on another.
Well, in this specific case, we're talking Windows, right? Why not
just distribute a libpq.dll along with the application, and you're
done?
It's not that people don't realize it may be useful. Just that it's
not useful enough to enough people to put lots of workarounds in th
ecode to make it work.
>> AFAICT the only case where anyone tries to do this is they have a
>> personal preference to avoid shared libraries, for generally-pretty-
>> darn-dubious reasons.
>
> Well, statically linked binaries are much easier to distribute, for one;
> and there are platforms where shared libraries simply do not exist, or
> where the entire system runs in a single namespace. Netware is still
> alive and kicking.
Do we even support netware on liboq? :-)
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
