pg.ddx.io pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: libpq++ with 7.4?
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: libpq++ with 7.4?
@ 2003-12-22 15:50 Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>
2003-12-23 16:39 ` Re: libpq++ with 7.4? Jeroen T. Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Carlos Moreno @ 2003-12-22 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-interfaces
Ok, I seem to have pushed the thread too much in the
"why was libpq++ removed" direction :-)
I will be moving to libpqxx for any new code that we
write. (BTW, is libpqxx *officially* accepted as the
C++ API?)
But I also wanted to address the issue that we have
lots of code that uses libpq++, and I don't think it's
a good idea to re-write that code with libpqxx (at least
not yet).
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 has been working fine -- the "hidden" issues
that you mentioned, Jeroen, don't seem to affect us
too much, as we only use transactions in a couple of
places in one of our applications; and the code is
localized enough to be confident that exceptions
won't be causing trouble... (I know, I know, famous
last words :-)).
So, any comments?
Carlos
--
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?
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: libpq++ with 7.4?
2003-12-22 15:50 Re: libpq++ with 7.4? Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>
@ 2003-12-23 16:39 ` Jeroen T. Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen @ 2003-12-23 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>; +Cc: pgsql-interfaces
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-23 16:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-22 15:50 Re: libpq++ with 7.4? Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>
2003-12-23 16:39 ` Jeroen T. Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox