On 01/17/2011 10:07 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Leon Smith<leon.p.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Michael Snoyman<mich...@snoyman.com> wrote:
In general I think it would be a good thing to have solid, low-level bindings
to PostgreSQL.
Well, there is PostgreSQL and libpq on hackage:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/libpq
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/PostgreSQL
The PostgreSQL looks like it's in need of maintenance, and hasn't
been updated in a few years. libpq is new, and looks promising. I
haven't really used either one, so I can't really say too much about
either.
Best,
Leon
I've tried PostgreSQL before, and if I remember correctly I couldn't
even build it. libpq looks interesting, I'd like to try it out.
Unfortunately it depends on unix, which would be a problem for Windows
users. If it looks like a good fit for persistent-postgresql, maybe I
can convince the author to replace the unix dep with something else
(unix-compat might be sufficient).
I would also like to know what things people find are deficient in HDBC
or HDBC-postgresql. If the API isn't good enough for some uses, that
could be fixed. I would like to avoid a proliferation of database
libraries as that is unnecessary duplication of work. HDBC does have an
easy way for DB backends to implement more functionality than the HDBC
API supports, or an alternative could also be to make HDBC-postgresql a
thin binding over libpq or some such.
-- John
Thanks for the pointer,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
