> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: 27 January 2006 14:31
> To: Ludek Finstrle
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Odbcapi30.c - 64 bit compiler warning cleanup
>
> The problem with this is that it creates an ABI breakage. I
> don't think
> we can just push this out as a bug fix --- it would require a major
> version bump, no?

Is that actually a problem given that apps should link to the driver
manager (which can dynamically load any version of any driver), not
directly to the driver itself?

Regards, Dave.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>> The problem with this is that it creates an ABI breakage.

> Is that actually a problem given that apps should link to the driver
> manager (which can dynamically load any version of any driver), not
> directly to the driver itself?

Hm, good point. So the question then becomes whether the driver manager
is expecting this parameter to be int-sized or pointer-sized.

I took a quick look at the unixODBC sources (2.0.4 which is what I have
handy, I know it's a bit old) and got completely confused: I see the
parameter declared as SQLUINTEGER in some places and UDWORD in others.
Anyone know that code base well enough to be certain which place is
definitive?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings