What is the file I need to require for connection to a postgres database? DNS resolution?
How am I *supposed* to find this?
I didn't see anything in the Core or Standard library references.
You need to have the postgres adapter installed. I made a blog
post[1] that covers installation. It's pretty easy, just have to do a
few steps beyond the 'gem install postgres'. You can probably skip
the step to symlink libpq-fe.h because I think that's FreeBSD
specific. Naturally, you'll need to make sure you use the correct
paths for postgresql's include/lib dirs, where your gems are located,
etc.
Pat
[1] http://www.flpr.org/articles/2005/12/05/installing-the-postgres-adapter
···
On 1/24/06, Tom Allison <tallison@tacocat.net> wrote:
What is the file I need to require for connection to a postgres
database? DNS resolution?How am I *supposed* to find this?
I didn't see anything in the Core or Standard library references.
A suggestion to the wider PostgreSQL-using Ruby populace; I was somewhat confused until I figured out that I had to install at least part of Postgres (bits of library files, I think) on the machine running Ruby in order to talk to the database that's running on a different system.
If somebody should happen to write/update/expand upon the instructions for installing Postgres support into Ruby to include the case where the Ruby code is being installed and/or running on a system without local Postgres, that'd probably be a good thing . . . 
Maybe some way to permanently bind the libraries into the gem-installed Ruby bits?
[Stop me if I start talking nonsense, I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about here.]
···
On Jan 24, 2006, at 18:23, Pat Maddox wrote:
You need to have the postgres adapter installed. I made a blog
post[1] that covers installation. It's pretty easy, just have to do a
few steps beyond the 'gem install postgres'. You can probably skip
the step to symlink libpq-fe.h because I think that's FreeBSD
specific. Naturally, you'll need to make sure you use the correct
paths for postgresql's include/lib dirs, where your gems are located,
etc.
Good suggestion, but it would be platform specific. Maybe this situation would
be best to create a pure ruby library. I see what you're saying. I think the
tile/tk packager is a direct solution, only if there was a packager for ruby
which would act this way.. To package in all the client libs built for many
platforms(Win, fbsd, linux, macosx), and package in to one small package.
Tsume
···
On Friday 27 January 2006 02:30 am, Dave Howell wrote:
A suggestion to the wider PostgreSQL-using Ruby populace; I was
somewhat confused until I figured out that I had to install at least
part of Postgres (bits of library files, I think) on the machine
running Ruby in order to talk to the database that's running on a
different system.If somebody should happen to write/update/expand upon the instructions
for installing Postgres support into Ruby to include the case where the
Ruby code is being installed and/or running on a system without local
Postgres, that'd probably be a good thing . . .
permanently bind the libraries into the gem-installed Ruby bits?[Stop me if I start talking nonsense, I'm not entirely sure what I'm
talking about here.]
Personally, I just use the postgres-pr adapter, which is pure Ruby.
No dependencies, no compilation. Good stuff.
···
On 1/26/06, Dave Howell <groups@grandfenwick.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 2006, at 18:23, Pat Maddox wrote:
> You need to have the postgres adapter installed. I made a blog
> post[1] that covers installation. It's pretty easy, just have to do a
> few steps beyond the 'gem install postgres'. You can probably skip
> the step to symlink libpq-fe.h because I think that's FreeBSD
> specific. Naturally, you'll need to make sure you use the correct
> paths for postgresql's include/lib dirs, where your gems are located,
> etc.A suggestion to the wider PostgreSQL-using Ruby populace; I was
somewhat confused until I figured out that I had to install at least
part of Postgres (bits of library files, I think) on the machine
running Ruby in order to talk to the database that's running on a
different system.If somebody should happen to write/update/expand upon the instructions
for installing Postgres support into Ruby to include the case where the
Ruby code is being installed and/or running on a system without local
Postgres, that'd probably be a good thing . . .
permanently bind the libraries into the gem-installed Ruby bits?[Stop me if I start talking nonsense, I'm not entirely sure what I'm
talking about here.]
Not necessarily, I think. I just installed Postgres 8, so I don't think I'd want Psql7.x libraries. (Or maybe they'd be fine.) I first tried mounting the server's Postgres library directory, and then told the gem-install script where it was, but it didn't actually copy them, it just noted their location, so that failed the instant the mount went down. Presumably, the code I have now is going to fail the instant I move it to a different machine, unless I manage to scavenge up all the various lint and popcorn flung far and wide in secret directories on my system. {sigh}
But even just a mention of this minor pitfall would be good, I think. All that's currently included is "You may have to tell the installer where your postgres files are," without noting that you won't HAVE any if you don't have a LOCAL install.
True self-contained binary-complete Ruby programs are apparently a much more complicated project.
···
On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:52, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 02:30 am, Dave Howell wrote:
To package in all the client libs built for many
platforms(Win, fbsd, linux, macosx), and package in to one small package.
Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
attention in another email.
Tsume
···
On Friday 27 January 2006 05:13 am, Dave Howell wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 9:52, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> On Friday 27 January 2006 02:30 am, Dave Howell wrote:
>
> To package in all the client libs built for many
> platforms(Win, fbsd, linux, macosx), and package in to one small
> package.Not necessarily, I think. I just installed Postgres 8, so I don't think
I'd want Psql7.x libraries. (Or maybe they'd be fine.) I first tried
mounting the server's Postgres library directory, and then told the
gem-install script where it was, but it didn't actually copy them, it
just noted their location, so that failed the instant the mount went
down. Presumably, the code I have now is going to fail the instant I
move it to a different machine, unless I manage to scavenge up all the
various lint and popcorn flung far and wide in secret directories on my
system. {sigh}But even just a mention of this minor pitfall would be good, I think.
All that's currently included is "You may have to tell the installer
where your postgres files are," without noting that you won't HAVE any
if you don't have a LOCAL install.True self-contained binary-complete Ruby programs are apparently a much
more complicated project.
Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't even recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this list a couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of them are the same thing with different names,) libraries to use, and was steered toward the non-pure-Ruby library.
···
On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
attention in another email.
I see it.. "postgres-ing? Too many choices!" I don't understand how one could
use a library over another just by someone making a comment, "AFAIK, it's not
as functional as the native extensions". Perhaps you should give the ruby
extension another shot, and post bug reports at any errors you receive. Pure
ruby solutions keep the sanity back in the programmer.
Tsume
···
On Friday 27 January 2006 06:46 am, Dave Howell wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
> attention in another email.Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't even
recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this list a
couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of them are the
same thing with different names,) libraries to use, and was steered
toward the non-pure-Ruby library.
I asked Robby Russel, who really knows his stuff when it comes to
postgres, which adapter to use. He said "postgres from RubyGems works
nicely."
Pat
···
On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 06:46 am, Dave Howell wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> > Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
> > attention in another email.
>
> Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't even
> recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this list a
> couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of them are the
> same thing with different names,) libraries to use, and was steered
> toward the non-pure-Ruby library.I see it.. "postgres-ing? Too many choices!" I don't understand how one could
use a library over another just by someone making a comment, "AFAIK, it's not
as functional as the native extensions". Perhaps you should give the ruby
extension another shot, and post bug reports at any errors you receive. Pure
ruby solutions keep the sanity back in the programmer.Tsume
The issue is not about wether one library works better than the other. As long
as the library is functional is the most important. However, the original OP
was wanting to know a method for not having to compile postgres client
library on each platform. Of course the solution is a pure ruby
implementation.
Tsume
···
On Friday 27 January 2006 10:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
> On Friday 27 January 2006 06:46 am, Dave Howell wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> > > Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
> > > attention in another email.
> >
> > Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't even
> > recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this list a
> > couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of them are the
> > same thing with different names,) libraries to use, and was steered
> > toward the non-pure-Ruby library.
>
> I see it.. "postgres-ing? Too many choices!" I don't understand how one
> could use a library over another just by someone making a comment,
> "AFAIK, it's not as functional as the native extensions". Perhaps you
> should give the ruby extension another shot, and post bug reports at any
> errors you receive. Pure ruby solutions keep the sanity back in the
> programmer.
>
> TsumeI asked Robby Russel, who really knows his stuff when it comes to
postgres, which adapter to use. He said "postgres from RubyGems works
nicely."Pat
It's not an issue? A native adapter is going to be faster than the
pure ruby adapter. Not sure how you came up with "the OP was wanting
to know a method for not having to compile postres client library on
each platform."
Here's the original question:
"What is the file I need to require for connection to a postgres
database? DNS resolution?
How am I *supposed* to find this?
I didn't see anything in the Core or Standard library references."
···
On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 10:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
> On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 January 2006 06:46 am, Dave Howell wrote:
> > > On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
> > > > Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought to my
> > > > attention in another email.
> > >
> > > Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't even
> > > recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this list a
> > > couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of them are the
> > > same thing with different names,) libraries to use, and was steered
> > > toward the non-pure-Ruby library.
> >
> > I see it.. "postgres-ing? Too many choices!" I don't understand how one
> > could use a library over another just by someone making a comment,
> > "AFAIK, it's not as functional as the native extensions". Perhaps you
> > should give the ruby extension another shot, and post bug reports at any
> > errors you receive. Pure ruby solutions keep the sanity back in the
> > programmer.
> >
> > Tsume
>
> I asked Robby Russel, who really knows his stuff when it comes to
> postgres, which adapter to use. He said "postgres from RubyGems works
> nicely."
>
> PatThe issue is not about wether one library works better than the other. As long
as the library is functional is the most important. However, the original OP
was wanting to know a method for not having to compile postgres client
library on each platform. Of course the solution is a pure ruby
implementation.Tsume
> > > > > Have you tried the postgres-pr library? The library was brought
> > > > > to my attention in another email.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, some months ago, but the installation failed utterly. I don't
> > > > even recall what all I got in error messages. Also, I asked on this
> > > > list a couple weeks ago which of the two (well, three, but two of
> > > > them are the same thing with different names,) libraries to use,
> > > > and was steered toward the non-pure-Ruby library.
> > >
> > > I see it.. "postgres-ing? Too many choices!" I don't understand how
> > > one could use a library over another just by someone making a
> > > comment, "AFAIK, it's not as functional as the native extensions".
> > > Perhaps you should give the ruby extension another shot, and post bug
> > > reports at any errors you receive. Pure ruby solutions keep the
> > > sanity back in the programmer.
> > >
> > > Tsume
> >
> > I asked Robby Russel, who really knows his stuff when it comes to
> > postgres, which adapter to use. He said "postgres from RubyGems works
> > nicely."
> >
> > Pat
>
> The issue is not about wether one library works better than the other. As
> long as the library is functional is the most important. However, the
> original OP was wanting to know a method for not having to compile
> postgres client library on each platform. Of course the solution is a
> pure ruby
> implementation.
>
> TsumeIt's not an issue? A native adapter is going to be faster than the
pure ruby adapter.
well yeah, the ruby version is going to be slower.
Not sure how you came up with "the OP was wanting
to know a method for not having to compile postres client library on
each platform."
Erm, *smile*. I guess I started with 177137 and thought it was the OP.
/me runs around, "I'm blind, I'm blind! *hits wall*"
Tsume
···
On Friday 27 January 2006 11:05 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
> On Friday 27 January 2006 10:31 am, Pat Maddox wrote:
> > On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday 27 January 2006 06:46 am, Dave Howell wrote:
> > > > On Jan 26, 2006, at 13:32, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com wrote:
Here's the original question:
"What is the file I need to require for connection to a postgres
database? DNS resolution?How am I *supposed* to find this?
I didn't see anything in the Core or Standard library references."
But he wasn't responding to the original question, but rather, to MY comment that there was a missing caveat for the non-pure-Ruby version; that you had to have the libraries installed somewhere, which means either that you have to have a local installation of Postgres (whether the database is local or not), or you have to somehow manually relocate said libraries, and tell the installer where you put them.
You do NOT have to *compile* Postgres; you just need the libraries.
Or you need an implementation that doesn't use them. I didn't install the pure Ruby version because (a) I'd tried it once before and had the install fail, and (b) I didn't _know_ that I'd have to fiddle around with copying the postgres library files over to my laptop until I tried installing the native-code Ruby/Postgres gem.
I have now done so, so I'm probably not going to try installing a different gem unless I have to. Ruby programs under OSX are already horribly non-portable (it's amazing what doesn't fly under default Ruby 1.6.8/OSX 10.3 vis a vis Ruby 1.8.?, never mind the various whateverses I've installed, like the Postgres gem), so I'll just have to see how well standaloneify.rb works for giving me binary-complete Ruby apps.
···
On Jan 26, 2006, at 18:05, Pat Maddox wrote:
On 1/26/06, tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com <tsumeruby@tsumelabs.com> wrote:
The issue is not about wether one library works better than the other. As long
as the library is functional is the most important. However, the original OP
was wanting to know a method for not having to compile postgres client
library on each platform. Of course the solution is a pure ruby
implementation.Tsume
It's not an issue? A native adapter is going to be faster than the
pure ruby adapter. Not sure how you came up with "the OP was wanting
to know a method for not having to compile postres client library on
each platform."Here's the original question:
"What is the file I need to require for connection to a postgres
database? DNS resolution?