Thread: A proposal to change psqlodbc
Hi all, Currently psqlodbc calls ODBC functions(SQLXXXX()) internally in pretty many places. This seems confusing to me and I'd like to change as follows. 1) Move the current implementation of SQLXXXX() to PG_XXXX() and so SQLXXXX() is never called internally(call PG_XXXX() instead). 2) SQLXXXX() simply calls PG_XXXX(). 2) is the first step and would be changed in the near future. For example translation_dll would be called outside PG_XXXX(but inside SQLXXXX) to avoid duplicate calls. If there's no objection, I would change the current source in a week or so. Comments ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> If there's no objection, I would change the current
> source in a week or so.
This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part
of post-7.1 bug fixing.
Perhaps you did mean that you'd commit after we make the branch, but
it wasn't clear...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > source in a week or so. > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near but have a basic question. What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients and I would request some features for psqlodbc. But most changes in client libraries are/have been independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to servers' implementation is one of the most abominable thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward compatibility and we have always been able to replace the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. Though initdb is a critical restriction for servers, clients are(should be) free from the restriction... regards, Hiroshi Inoue P.S. The change would be a bug fix in a sense though I'm not sure. Both the driver manager and each ODBC driver have ODBC functions of the same name. ODBC function calls inside a driver may call the functions of the driver manager.
> Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > source in a week or so. > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > but have a basic question. > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? You can issue your own releases of ODBC while 7.2 is still being developed. For ODBC, the split really just means that 7.1.X users don't get the changes unless you backpatch 7.1.X after the split. -- 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, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > but have a basic question. > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > You can issue your own releases of ODBC while 7.2 is still being > developed. For ODBC, the split really just means that 7.1.X users don't > get the changes unless you backpatch 7.1.X after the split. > As far as I see, few people need the backpatch. Under Windows most people use the binary distribu- tion. Under unix I wonder how many people use our driver. Recently I've searched the use of our ODBC driver with iODBC a little but I was able to find the word neither *successful* nor *solved*. Is the driver really supposed to be available with iODBC ? How about giving up iODBC support ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue
Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > source in a week or so. > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > but have a basic question. > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus in order to provide ODBC level 3 support? The author started from psqlodbc source and has already done some modification, as well as a full installer for ODBC driver... Well, just an information to avoid duplicating efforts :-) Andrea Aime
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Aime [mailto:aaime@comune.modena.it] > Sent: 24 April 2001 07:35 > To: Postgres ODBC > Subject: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > <snip> > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > in order to provide ODBC level 3 support? The author started > from psqlodbc source and has already done some modification, > as well as a full installer for ODBC driver... > Well, just an information to avoid duplicating efforts :-) > Andrea Aime I had noticed it, and made the same comment on the list a few weeks back (though no one commented on it). As for the installer, we have one as well now. Currently it's in ftp.postgresql.org/pub/odbc/test. I've had only good feedback so far, so I intend to package up 07.01.0005 when it's ready in this format (both as just an .msi file, and full version with the MS Installer as well). Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrea Aime [mailto:aaime@comune.modena.it] > > Sent: 24 April 2001 07:35 > > To: Postgres ODBC > > Subject: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > <snip> > > > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > > in order to provide ODBC level 3 support? The author started > > from psqlodbc source and has already done some modification, > > as well as a full installer for ODBC driver... > > Well, just an information to avoid duplicating efforts :-) > > Andrea Aime > > I had noticed it, and made the same comment on the list a few weeks back > (though no one commented on it). > Well, I had to search for it by a query on my messages ("Search for messages, netscape messenger)... I didn't noticed it, it was buried at the end of a reply in a thread that was related to something else... maybe I wasn't the only one that didn't see it :-) Regards Andrea Aime
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near
> but have a basic question.
> What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ?
You're correct that as far as ODBC's development goes, there's no reason
to tie it to server development cycles. But *as long as it's part of
the Postgres source tree* it needs to respect the Postgres cycle.
In particular, it won't do to risk introducing development-type bugs
into ODBC just before 7.1.1 release, because that release is going to go
out with only minimal beta testing. Major changes that are not forced
by serious bugs should happen on a development branch, not a
stable-release branch --- that's just plain common sense.
If this creates problems for ODBC, then maybe that needs to be a
separate project with a CVS tree somewhere else, and we'll go back
to just packaging a recent stable release of ODBC with Postgres
releases.
> P.S. The change would be a bug fix in a sense though
> I'm not sure. Both the driver manager and each ODBC
> driver have ODBC functions of the same name. ODBC
> function calls inside a driver may call the functions
> of the driver manager.
We've been working around that with -Bsymbolic on platforms where
it's needed. I agree that not naming the functions alike is a better
solution; but I don't think it's critical enough to justify a post-
release patch ...
regards, tom lane
Andrea Aime wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, not as part > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > but have a basic question. > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus Isn't the project released under GPL not LGPL ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] > Sent: 24 April 2001 09:59 > To: andrea.aime@comune.modena.it > Cc: Postgres ODBC > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > Andrea Aime wrote: > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, > not as part > > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > > but have a basic question. > > > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > > > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > > > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > > > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > > > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > > > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > > > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > > > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > > > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > > > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. > > > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > > Isn't the project released under GPL not LGPL ? > Which one? The official PostgreSQL driver is LGPL - I don't know about the other. Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] > > Sent: 24 April 2001 09:59 > > To: andrea.aime@comune.modena.it > > Cc: Postgres ODBC > > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > > > > Andrea Aime wrote: > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, > > not as part > > > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > > > but have a basic question. > > > > > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > > > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > > > > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > > > > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > > > > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > > > > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > > > > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > > > > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > > > > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > > > > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > > > > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. > > > > > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > > > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > > > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > > > > Isn't the project released under GPL not LGPL ? > > > > Which one? The official PostgreSQL driver is LGPL - I don't know about the > other. > I see the following at http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus/projdisplay.php. This project is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). regards, Hiroshi Inoue
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] > Sent: 24 April 2001 10:33 > To: Dave Page > Cc: andrea.aime@comune.modena.it; Postgres ODBC > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] > > > Sent: 24 April 2001 09:59 > > > To: andrea.aime@comune.modena.it > > > Cc: Postgres ODBC > > > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > > > > > > > Andrea Aime wrote: > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, > > > not as part > > > > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > > > > but have a basic question. > > > > > > > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > > > > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > > > > > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > > > > > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > > > > > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > > > > > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > > > > > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > > > > > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > > > > > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > > > > > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > > > > > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. > > > > > > > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > > > > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > > > > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > > > > > > Isn't the project released under GPL not LGPL ? > > > > > > > Which one? The official PostgreSQL driver is LGPL - I don't > know about the > > other. > > > > I see the following at > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus/projdisplay.php. > > This project is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Is this change of licence allowed? Regards, Dave.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:26:55 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > >If there's no objection, I would change the current >source in a week or so. > >Comments ? Well go for it. But maybe a dev branch in cvs would be a good idea. regards Johann Zuschlag zuschlag2@online.de
The project was released under LGPL but the project page did not indicate this. I mistakenly did not select LGPL when submittingthe project. It has been corrected. Kevin Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] > > > Sent: 24 April 2001 09:59 > > > To: andrea.aime@comune.modena.it > > > Cc: Postgres ODBC > > > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: A proposal to change psqlodbc > > > > > > > > > Andrea Aime wrote: > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > > > > > > > If there's no objection, I would change the current > > > > > > > source in a week or so. > > > > > > > > > > > > This seems like something to do during 7.2 development, > > > not as part > > > > > > of post-7.1 bug fixing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can wait to commit it if the 7.2 branch is near > > > > > but have a basic question. > > > > > > > > > > What does 7.2 development mean for clients(psqlodbc) ? > > > > > Certainly 7.2 would require some changes on clients > > > > > and I would request some features for psqlodbc. > > > > > But most changes in client libraries are/have been > > > > > independent from servers' changes. Strong binding to > > > > > servers' implementation is one of the most abominable > > > > > thing for clients. Psqlodbc driver has kept backward > > > > > compatibility and we have always been able to replace > > > > > the old driver by the latest one. As long as psqlodbc > > > > > doesn't intend a big change(e.g. ODBC level 3 support) > > > > > of its own, it doesn't seems to need the branch. > > > > > > > > I see you speak about ODBC level 3 support... does everybody > > > > know that a project named psqlodbc++ has started at > > > > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus > > > > > > Isn't the project released under GPL not LGPL ? > > > > > > > Which one? The official PostgreSQL driver is LGPL - I don't know about the > > other. > > > > I see the following at > http://www.greatbridge.org/project/psqlodbcplus/projdisplay.php. > > This project is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL). > > regards, > Hiroshi Inoue > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/