Received: from sd.tpf.co.jp (sd.tpf.co.jp [210.161.239.34])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0PNibq34853
	for <pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:44:38 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from Inoue@tpf.co.jp)
Received: (qmail 18336 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2001 23:44:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO viscomail.tpf.co.jp) (100.0.0.108)
	by sd2.10.0.100.in-addr.arpa with SMTP; 25 Jan 2001 23:44:33 -0000
Received: from tpf.co.jp (3d_note1 [126.0.1.61])
	by viscomail.tpf.co.jp (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA22013;
	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:44:32 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <3A70BA9A.7CC60442@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:45:30 +0900
From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [ja] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
CC: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RE: [PATCHES] ODBC Patch for OJs/Large Querys & Rows
References: <8568FC767B4AD311AC33006097BCD3D61A2926@woody.vale-housing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200101/64
X-Sequence-Number: 64

Dave Page wrote:
>

[snip]
 
> > >
> > > We usually are more concerned about old libraries talking to new
> > > servers.  New libraries talking to old servers are not
> > needed as much.
> > >
> >
> > I strongly object.
> > Postgres ODBC driver has supported all the way back to version 6.2(
> > or 6.0 according to a person's opinion). Why could we easily break the
> > backward compatibility without any consensus ?
> 
> OK. Here's another (additional) patch. This gets the PostgreSQL version upon
> connection, and then uses it to determine what to return from SQLGetInfo for
> SQL_DBMS_VER, SQL_MAX_ROW_SIZE, SQL_MAX_STATEMENT_LEN, SQL_OJ_CAPABILITIES
> and SQL_OUTER_JOINS. This makes all my changes backward compatible. It also
> increments the revision number to 07.01.0001 and corrects the format of the
> version number which I previously mistyped as 7.1.0000 (as per ODBC
> requirements).
> 

Thanks.
I may be able to fix a large-object related change
using your pg_version(_number).

> NB: I've not tested this under *nix, only W2K.
> 

Unfortunately I know no one who could test both :-).

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue