X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88F9D1B48F for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:40:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06830-07 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:39:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.137]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D980AD1B4AE for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:39:14 -0400 (AST) Received: from xs1.xs4all.nl (xs1.xs4all.nl [194.109.21.2]) by smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBNGd6nh088338; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:39:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from xs1.xs4all.nl (jtv@localhost.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by xs1.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBNGd6xE081498; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:39:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jtv@xs4all.nl) Received: (from jtv@localhost) by xs1.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id hBNGd5Y0081497; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:39:05 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jtv) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:39:05 +0100 From: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" To: Carlos Moreno Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: libpq++ with 7.4? Message-ID: <20031223163905.GA79880@xs4all.nl> Mail-Followup-To: Carlos Moreno , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org References: <3FE712AD.4090902@mailinator.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FE712AD.4090902@mailinator.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200312/51 X-Sequence-Number: 4660 On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 10:50:05AM -0500, Carlos Moreno wrote: > I will be moving to libpqxx for any new code that we > write. (BTW, is libpqxx *officially* accepted as the > C++ API?) Yes. In fact this was what triggered the whole unbundling debate and the ensuing decision to unbundle. > So, I was hoping to get some comments regarding the > issue of whether or not I should expect any trouble > when moving to version 7.4 of the backend. The code in libpq++ is simple enough that any problems _in the library_ are likely to be compilation problems, not runtime problems. OTOH it's also simple enough that whether your libpq++-based code will continue to work (from a runtime perspective) will depend largely on details of your own code, such as how you check returned status codes or how deep you get into details such as the character escaping done by COPY. Other than that, I for one just don't know what's going to happen. The 7.4 release cycle has proven pretty compatible for me, but since I regularly updated from CVS the changes were spread out over a long period from my perspective. > PS: Jeroen, I have a couple of comments/feedback on > libpqxx; should I e-mail you directly, or you > prefer that I post them here? Take a look at the libpqxx page on GBorg (or via http://pqxx.tk/); it has a mailing list and bug/request lists managed by GBorg. See which is most appropriate for what you want to say, or is the most convenient. Given the unbundling, pgsql-interfaces is probably not the right venue for this anymore. Jeroen