Re: Updates via ODBC commands
От | Shachar Shemesh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Updates via ODBC commands |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 43C8D384.1080903@shemesh.biz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Updates via ODBC commands (Ludek Finstrle <luf@pzkagis.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Updates via ODBC commands
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
Ludek Finstrle wrote: >Yes. There is well known issue with dropping updateable cursor support. >I'm sorry if you need updateable cursor you have to stay in using 07.03 >version (or maybe 08.00 - I don't know it exactly). I'm sure that there >is no updateable cursor support in 08.01 version. > > Let me give you a short rundown of the customer. We started a project of migrating one of their programs to Postgresql. Things were already working when we hit a snag - performance for retreving large tables was not acceptable. I managed to narrow it down to a problem in the ODBC driver (7.4), where the lines are retreived one at a time, probably due to the need to emulate updateable cursors. The client decided to invest money in getting the problem solved. This was about the time that Hiroshi quit the project. After some consideration, they decided to freeze work on the particular product they were working on, and work on another one of their projects, which uses OLE DB. They sponsored the lion's share of the development of PgOleDb to date (with my company, Lingnu, doing the actual work plus putting a little pro bono work as well). They now got back to their original product, and were suprised to find out that what used to work no longer does. I described the work done on the ODBC driver as a "rewrite". Assuming they decide to move forward with the support, there are three possible avenues for continuing: 1. Fix the performance problem with 7.4 2. Add updateable cursors to 8.01 3. Switch the product to use OLE DB and add updateable rowsets there (PgOleDb does not currently support updates either). I'm currently assuming that any of the above would have to actually be done by Lingnu with their sponsorship, but feel free to pleasently surprise me. I'm fairly sure that I'll manage to convince them that 1 is not a good idea (unless someone here thinks that the new version under-performs in relation to the direct socket version). I believe they will go with 2, in which case we'll obviously release any work we do. >Regards, > >Luf > > Shachar
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: