Thread: Recommended ODBC version for compilation
It seems the default ODBC version continues to be 0x0300 even though there is support for features up to 0x0351 in some places. Why are they not enabled by default and/or what would be the ramifications of enabling them (say, using --with-odbcver)? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On 12/11/05 1:36 pm, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > It seems the default ODBC version continues to be 0x0300 even though > there is support for features up to 0x0351 in some places. Why are > they not enabled by default and/or what would be the ramifications of > enabling them (say, using --with-odbcver)? I'm not entirely sure what the ramifications will be - I can't imagine it will cause many problems provided apps interogate the driver before using advanced features (as they really should anyway). Anoop can probably answer more as he's spent quite some time looking at our spec compliance - have you seen his gap analysis on the pgFoundry site? Regards, Dave
Hi Dave/Peter, Dave: As you know, we have spent quite a long time preparing the gap analysis document between version 3.0 and 3.5x, and there was no response at all to that :-( > > there is support for features up to 0x0351 in some places. Why are > > they not enabled by default and/or what would be the ramifications of > > enabling them (say, using --with-odbcver)? I do not know why they are not enabled by default, but you should be able to enable them using --with-odbcver=0x0351. We have not implemented any additional APIs in the libpq version. All the APIs are the same as in the old driver. If somebody is interested, they can go through the gap analysis document and suggest some useful APIs to add, so that someone could take it up and work on that. The gap analysis document can be found here: http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000125/82/psqlodbc3.5xcompliance.x ls Regards, Anoop > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-odbc-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-odbc- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dave Page > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:36 PM > To: Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ODBC] Recommended ODBC version for compilation > > > > > On 12/11/05 1:36 pm, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > > > It seems the default ODBC version continues to be 0x0300 even though > > there is support for features up to 0x0351 in some places. Why are > > they not enabled by default and/or what would be the ramifications of > > enabling them (say, using --with-odbcver)? > > I'm not entirely sure what the ramifications will be - I can't imagine it > will cause many problems provided apps interogate the driver before using > advanced features (as they really should anyway). > > Anoop can probably answer more as he's spent quite some time looking at > our > spec compliance - have you seen his gap analysis on the pgFoundry site? > > Regards, Dave > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Anoop Kumar [mailto:anoopk@pervasive-postgres.com] > Sent: 14 November 2005 05:10 > To: Dave Page; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [ODBC] Recommended ODBC version for compilation > > Hi Dave/Peter, > > Dave: As you know, we have spent quite a long time preparing the gap > analysis document between version 3.0 and 3.5x, and there was no > response at all to that :-( Well, that's not strictly true - I'm pretty sure I commented on how well it had been done and how useful it /will/ be, but then urged you to concentrate on bugs rather than gap-shrinkage for the time being. Speaking of which, I've opened a bug tracker on pgfoundry now... /D
> > > > Hi Dave/Peter, > > > > Dave: As you know, we have spent quite a long time preparing the gap > > analysis document between version 3.0 and 3.5x, and there was no > > response at all to that :-( > > Well, that's not strictly true - I'm pretty sure I commented on how well > it had been done and how useful it /will/ be, but then urged you to > concentrate on bugs rather than gap-shrinkage for the time being. Yes, that's right Dave. I have not forgotten your mails. Probably I was hoping for some more comments on it other than you :-) Regards, Anoop
Dave Page wrote: > Anoop can probably answer more as he's spent quite some time looking > at our spec compliance - have you seen his gap analysis on the > pgFoundry site? If it's there, it's well hidden. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Anoop Kumar wrote: > The gap analysis document can be found here: > http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000125/82/psqlodbc3.5xcomplianc >e.x ls This document doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, nor does it seem to have a recognizable file format. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Dave Page wrote: > Speaking of which, I've opened a bug tracker on pgfoundry now... Nice, but why does that thing send me emails about bugs I have nothing to do with? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
-----Original Message----- From: "Peter Eisentraut"<peter_e@gmx.net> Sent: 14/11/05 19:11:02 To: "Anoop Kumar"<anoopk@pervasive-postgres.com> Cc: "Dave Page"<dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>, "pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org"<pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Recommended ODBC version for compilation > This document doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, nor does it seem > to have a recognizable file format. Ooops, the docman was hidden. Fixed. http://pgfoundry.org/docman/?group_id=1000125 And it's an Excel spreadsheet. Regards, Dave -----Unmodified Original Message----- Anoop Kumar wrote: > The gap analysis document can be found here: > http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000125/82/psqlodbc3.5xcomplianc >e.x ls This document doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, nor does it seem to have a recognizable file format. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
-----Original Message----- From: "Peter Eisentraut"<peter_e@gmx.net> Sent: 14/11/05 19:50:13 To: "Dave Page"<dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Cc: "pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org"<pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Recommended ODBC version for compilation Dave Page wrote: > Speaking of which, I've opened a bug tracker on pgfoundry now... > Nice, but why does that thing send me emails about bugs I have nothing > to do with? It should send them to the list, not to you specifically. Is that not the case? /D -----Unmodified Original Message----- Dave Page wrote: > Speaking of which, I've opened a bug tracker on pgfoundry now... Nice, but why does that thing send me emails about bugs I have nothing to do with? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Dave Page wrote: > It should send them to the list, not to you specifically. Is that not > the case? Apparently they are routed through the list, but I just see To: noreply@pgfoundry.org From: <noreply@pgfoundry.org> which doesn't really help my filtering rules. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
-----Original Message----- From: "Peter Eisentraut"<peter_e@gmx.net> Sent: 14/11/05 20:17:06 To: "Dave Page"<dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> Cc: "pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org"<pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Recommended ODBC version for compilation > Apparently they are routed through the list, but I just see > > To: noreply@pgfoundry.org > From: <noreply@pgfoundry.org> > > which doesn't really help my filtering rules. Well that's down to gforge I'm afraid. Perhaps one of the pgfoundry guys can improve that. The other option is Yet AnotherMailing List, but that won't help keep things in one place for ppl searching the archives which I think is important. Regards, Dave -----Unmodified Original Message----- Dave Page wrote: > It should send them to the list, not to you specifically. Is that not > the case? Apparently they are routed through the list, but I just see To: noreply@pgfoundry.org From: <noreply@pgfoundry.org> which doesn't really help my filtering rules. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
> Anoop Kumar wrote: > > The gap analysis document can be found here: > > http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000125/82/psqlodbc3.5xcomplianc > >e.x ls > > This document doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere, nor does it seem > to have a recognizable file format. I do not know how a newline character appeared in the link which was not there at the time I sent it (I just checked my sent items). The link is: http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000125/82/psqlodbc3.5xcompliance.x ls Please note the filename: psqlodbc3.5xcompliance.xls Regards Anoop