I can see Jeff's point. If both libpq and the Postgres JDBC drivers  
exist what is the value add and writing a third version that  
duplicates their functionality? Certainly it could be a good research  
project to see how complexity, bug count, and performance vary across  
three implementations but not a great use of Jeff's time.

Does anyone know which of the Postgres JDBC driver or libpq is most  
widely used today and most reliable?

Peter



On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 08:49 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Interesting.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> In my experience with ruby-pg, there were only minor issues with
> platforms other than windows. I solved all the problems that I know
> about on OS X, linux, solaris, and freebsd. It probably works on some
> other platforms as well. Windows is the only difficult case, as far  
> as I
> can tell.
>
> Trying to maintain all the code to implement the PostgreSQL protocol
> would be a huge project, and not one that I have the time for.
> Furthermore, people need to trust their database driver, and I can
> provide a certain level of that trust by using the well-tested libpq
> rather than trying to implement it myself.
>
> Regards,
> 	Jeff Davis
>
>