> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Frost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 April 2006 12:56
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org;
> Hiroshi Inoue
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Practical impediment to supporting
> multiple SSL libraries
>
> There was barely any discussion at all about this... I do
> follow the lists involved even though I didn't respond to the
> question regarding this (either time it was asked) because I
> didn't understand that 'hybrid' meant 'only using libpq for
> the connection'. I'm curious how many others of those being
> asked understood this... I think the fact that you had to
> ask twice to get any response at all is a good indication.
There was extensive off-list discussion between all the active
developers before we explained the situation on list, created the test
builds, announced the fact that the code was in CVS and asked for
feedback from users. Most of the initial discussion occurred off-list
because there were issues of commercial support to consider that at the
time should not have been done in public (in a nutshell, we didn't want
to piss Pervasive off).
> Does the latest verion in CVS support V3 of the wireline
> protocol? If I recall correctly, the version it was based on
> still only supported V2...
Yes, it supports v3.
> What does the wireline protocol implementation in the ODBC
> driver do that it can't get through libpq? I can certainly
> understand the double-copying issue (I complained about that
> myself when first starting to use libpq) but I think that
> could be fixed without that much difficulty. Were there other things?
I don't know if we are currently using any features that libpq cannot
offer.
I do know that although the older driver basically worked with libpq,
major features (such as updateable cursors) were broken beyond feasible
repair. They would have had to have been almost entirely redesigned, and
given that we have enough trouble finding developers with enough time
and the ability to fix even relatively simple bugs in the driver it
seemed more sensible to go with the solution that worked properly, yet
still offered the features (v3, SSL, Kerberos) that we wanted from
libpq. The only downside is that we might have to update for any future
protocols again, but even that is not essential given that the server
will fall back to v2 and presumably v3 when v4 is written.
Regards, Dave
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
