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 f0Q1pNq42308
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:51:24 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Inoue@tpf.co.jp)
Received: (qmail 25302 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2001 01:51:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO viscomail.tpf.co.jp) (100.0.0.108)
	by sd2.10.0.100.in-addr.arpa with SMTP; 26 Jan 2001 01:51:19 -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 KAA22091;
	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:51:18 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <3A70D850.CD46B0FD@tpf.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:52:16 +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: Adam Lang <aalang@rutgersinsurance.com>
CC: pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [ODBC] Re: RE: [PATCHES] ODBC Patch for OJs/Large Querys & Rows
References: <EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJKEOADGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
	<00cd01c086f2$16543980$330a0a0a@6014cwpza006>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archive-Number: 200101/297
X-Sequence-Number: 921

Adam Lang wrote:
> 
> What exactly do you mean by centralize the version info?  Do you mean having
> the ODBC driver version match the Postgres DB version?
> 

Yes. IIRC, there was a discussion about the autogeneration of
the version numbers from PostgreSQL source configuration. I
object to the idea.

> If so, I do agree in doing that... to a degree.  I say we only match major
> versions where there are added features.  As an example, 7.0 has many
> feature additions over 6.5.  Once the driver supports all the functionality
> of 7.0, it should be moved to version 7.0.  Then, if a patch or something is
> added to the ODBC to require it being upped a version, we should use very
> minor increments, something like a precision of 4 or 5.  (A patched 7.0
> driver would be incremented to 7.0.0.0.1) That way, we know a driver version
> as 7.0 supports all functionality from 7.0 servers and back.

Agreed.

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

> 
> Adam Lang
> Systems Engineer
> Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
> http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
> To: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>; "Bruce Momjian"
> <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
> Cc: "pgsql-interfaces" <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
> <pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:28 AM
> Subject: RE: RE: [PATCHES] ODBC Patch for OJs/Large Querys & Rows
> 
> <snip>
> > I also object to centralize the version info. It is preferable that client
> > apps and servers are relatively indepedent as much as possible.
> > It seems very natural that client apps and the server have separate
> > versioning policies. Do we always have to wait for the all-in-one
> > release to get improved client apps ?
> >
> > Regrads,
> > Hiroshi Inoue