Re: Your ODBC driver = PostODBC?

Mike Edwards wrote:

> Hi Byronn,
> I came across your message regarding the ODBC driver for PostgreSQL.  Is
> this the same as soemthing called PostODBC?  I ask, because I installed
> PostODBC and it does not seem to work quite correctly, and I was hoping
> to give your driver a shot.  If it is the same thing, I will install the
> postdll.zip files.  If not, I need to remove the old stuf and install
> postdrv.exe.
>

Well, our (Insight that is) version is currently at 6.30.0242 and is called
PostgreSQL odbc driver.  This driver is actively being maintained and
enhanced by me (Byron).  In fact, a new version will be available tomorrow.
We post a 32bit self-extracting EXE full install (postdrv.exe), so you dont
have to mess around with compiling it just to try it out.  The full source
code (postsrc.zip) is also there which includes the VC4.0 project workspace
that I use to build the driver.  And for those interested in saving time,
you can just download the postdll.zip, and extract psqlodbc.dll it into your
\windows\system directory.  YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS, however, if you have done
the full install (postdrv.exe) at least once --  otherwise, it wont work.
(maybe that is your problem).

Our website is http://www.insightdist.com/psqlodbc

I'm not sure about how our driver gets into the postgres distribution -- it
may be called Postodbc?  If you want, check for the "psqlodbc.h" file, and
there should be some defines like the following:
#define DRIVERNAME             "PostgreSQL ODBC"
#define DBMS_NAME              "PostgreSQL"
#define DBMS_VERSION           "06.30.0242 PostgreSQL 6.3"
#define POSTGRESDRIVERVERSION  "06.30.0242"
#define DRIVER_FILE_NAME  "PSQLODBC.DLL"

A while back, there was some division over whether to include it in the
distribution because it was only for 32bit windows (95 or nt).   There is a
pending patch to allow it to work on unix with iodbc, which I intend to put
in as soon as possible.  If running 16 bit applications on win95 or win nt,
it will work too.  The only scenario which is not supported yet is running
Win3.1

I'm not sure what the final standing on all this was.  Anyone like to
respond?

Byron