Re: :PgSQL: More Queestions

2002-11-19 Thread David Wheeler
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 03:42 PM, Jeff Urlwin wrote: David -- I'll pipe in where I can... Thanks Jeff. I'll read your comments tonight and send a reply in the morning. Regards, David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [INTERFACES] DBD::PgSQL: More Queestions

2002-11-19 Thread David Wheeler
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 03:13 PM, David Wheeler wrote: Greetings fellow DBI and PostgreSQL hackers. Yes, it's me the C and XS newbie who wants to write a new PostgreSQL DBI driver, back with more questions. Thanks for bearing with me. Gah, I wasn't ready to send that. I was working

RE: :PgSQL: More Queestions

2002-11-19 Thread Jeff Urlwin
David -- I'll pipe in where I can... > > * In several of the functions, DBD::Pg starts with the statement > "dTHR;". DBD::mysql, meanwhile, starts with this: > > #ifdef dTHR >dTHR; > #endif > > Which is correct, and what is this thing (variable) for? You probably only need dTHR to support old

DBD::PgSQL: More Queestions

2002-11-19 Thread David Wheeler
Greetings fellow DBI and PostgreSQL hackers. Yes, it's me the C and XS newbie who wants to write a new PostgreSQL DBI driver, back with more questions. Thanks for bearing with me. Status: I've just finished reading through DBD::Pg's dbd_preparse() and dbd_st_execute() functions, and they've lef

Re: [INTERFACES] DBD::PostgreSQL

2002-11-19 Thread David Wheeler
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 04:19 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: You'd also need a runtime check that the server you connected to was of a sufficiently high version. I realise it would make things more complicated, but would it be possible to keep the manual transaction starting behaviour, as

Re: [INTERFACES] DBD::PostgreSQL

2002-11-19 Thread Peter Haworth
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:17:05 -0800, David Wheeler wrote: > On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 09:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > As of 7.3 that's not necessarily so anymore; you can "SET autocommit TO > > off" and get the behavior where any statement starts a transaction block > > (and so an explicit COMM