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? //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
