Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 08:41 +0900, John Carter wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Reid Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> see ruby-pg
>>>
>>> http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby-pg/
>> Interestingly enough that link also serves up both flavors,
>> ruby-postgres and ruby-pg, without comment. Is there any discussion
>> anywhere on the relative merits?
>>
> 
> ruby-postgres had some serious maintenance problems, and was unable to
> even build against PostgreSQL 8.3, and my various patches were not
> applied.
> 
> So, I started maintaining a fork of ruby-postgres with my most important
> patches applied, and started a rewrite to address some of the more
> fundamental problems. The rewrite is called ruby-pg, and I consider it
> to be the best driver available, and it's intended to replace the
> others.
> 
>> Or is ruby-pg the One True flavour?
> 
> As far as I can tell, it's the only actively maintained PostgreSQL
> driver for Ruby. It's fairly new, but:
>  * it's well documented (RDoc)
>  * offers almost all the functionality available from libpq (which is a
> lot of functions)
>  * I'm responsive to bug reports
>  * I have an expanding set of rspec tests. 
> 
> The biggest problem I am having with the project is making it work
> seamlessly on windows. Several people have tried to help me, but I don't
> think the problem has been solved, and I haven't received many specific
> suggestions to make it work.
> 
> If anyone wants to help me with that, please contact me.
> 
> Regards,
> 	Jeff Davis
> 
> 
> 

Nothing else works seamlessly on Windows. :) But seriously, there is an 
add-on you can get when you install PostgreSQL 8.3 on Windows that 
contains an ancient implementation of Ruby and Rails -- with PostgreSQL, 
of course. I looked at it briefly, and I have no idea how it was talking 
to PostgreSQL.

At this stage of the game, I think a pure Ruby PostgreSQL (and MySQL) 
interface has some serious advantages over struggling with numerous C 
compilers for Windows, Mac, Solaris, etc.