Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Organization: WebThing Ltd
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: DBD: Prepared statements with PGSQL
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 08:09:31 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3
References: <20060406124316.3bwyt9ekg0s48488@www.rexursive.com>
 <200604072349.54047.nick@webthing.com>
 <1144462041.5282.7.camel@coyote.rexursive.com>
In-Reply-To: <1144462041.5282.7.camel@coyote.rexursive.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200604080809.34499.nick@webthing.com>

On Saturday 08 April 2006 03:07, Bojan Smojver wrote:

[ Please don't Cc: me when you post to the list.  One copy
of your messages is enough ]

> On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 23:49 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> > It's also possible that it did exist
> > but that the code was written with insufficient reference to TFM.
> > Do you know when PQprepare first appeared?
>
> If PostgreSQL manuals are accurate (and there is no reason why they
> shouldn't be), the first occurrence was in 8.0.

OK, I can relax:-)  apr_dbd_pgsql was written for 7.x, and was successor
to software I originally ran with 6.x.

> So, anyone using 7.4 or 
> below would be out of luck.

Don't go there.  It's a totally unnecessary regression.

> Or we'd have to detect the presence of the 
> function at configure time, as Garrett suggested, and then have two
> different chunks of code.

If you want to take that on, feel free.  Does it gain us anything?

-- 
Nick Kew