
> > People should really use DBD::Pg (good that it stays on CPAN). 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Pg's interface seems a bit closer to libpg's interface than DBD::Pg.
> I would think that would be an advantage.

Well libpq is very nonstandard same as interfaces/perl5. Since I like
somewhat portable code, I would allways suggest people use the more standard 
interfaces, like DBD::Pg ODBC ECPG.

Andreas

Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:44:14 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: DBD::Pg ...

Well, can't say much to ECPG/ODBC, but I find that using DBI, period, is
easier then the perl5 interface, as it allows for creating reasonably
portable perl code ...

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:

>
> > > People should really use DBD::Pg (good that it stays on CPAN).
> >
> > Why do you say that?
> >
> > Pg's interface seems a bit closer to libpg's interface than DBD::Pg.
> > I would think that would be an advantage.
>
> Well libpq is very nonstandard same as interfaces/perl5. Since I like
> somewhat portable code, I would allways suggest people use the more standard
> interfaces, like DBD::Pg ODBC ECPG.
>
> Andreas
>


Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:26:48 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: DBD::Pg ...