Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
- To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
- Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
- Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:49:32 +0100
- Message-id: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7D9B(at)algol(dot)sollentuna(dot)se>
> > Yes. > > If FooApp is compiled against 8.0, it will then be unable to run if > > you upgrade libpq to 8.1. IIRC on Unix it will "fall > forward" to the > > new version if it's just a minor version upgrade (correct me if I'm > > wrong). > > On windows, it will break with an ugly dialog box. Which is why DLL > > renames are usually only done for backwards incompatible changes. > > So each app ships with it's required version of libpq, thus > preventing any issues, including problems caused by finding > an older dll with a different API. It makes life easier for us. Only then we can be almost certain that all apps will ship with 8.0.0, 8.1.0 etc, and nobody will get any minor version upgrades. But yeah, the easiest for us is certainly to push that out to the app vendor. Not really a problem for me, just wanted to point out the scenario. //Magnus
- Prev by Date: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- Next by Date: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- Previous by thread: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- Next by thread: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Client-side password encryption
- Indexes: