On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:23:10PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 06:45:12PM +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > Almost portability issues come from Windows, but ecpg in 8.2 only support
> > thread-safety on pthread, not on Win32. So backporting is easier than
> > expected because we can neglect Windows.
> True, but it's still a pretty huge change. I'd prefer to only backport
> small fixes not serious rewrites.
> > I want thread-safe ecpg *NOW* and cannot wait for 8.3 release...
> Which is a valid point for backporting your changes but NOT for
> including them into CVS.
Yeah, that's all I object to of course. Not the actual backporting.
> > BTW, do we need to distribute ecpg with server (or client library) ?
> > If it was a separate product, I think we will be able to maintain them
> > more flexiblly, just like libpqxx or JDBC.
> I do not agree at all with this statement. IMO it's absolutely necessary
> that ecpg's parser is in sync with the backend's parser. So essentially
> we would not gain any flexibility as we'd have to release at the same
> time anyway.
That's the reason I recall for keeping it in there as well.
Michael, any chance to consider the exports-from-libecpg issue I posted
about the other day?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster