Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: watts(at)humbug(dot)antnet(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Date: 1998-04-29 14:50:28
Message-ID: 8692.893861428@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
watts(at)humbug(dot)antnet(dot)com writes:
> I suggest the application already has fork or fork/exec to
> implement an  asynchronous design.

True, if you don't mind assuming you have threads then you could
dedicate one thread to blocking in libpq while your other threads manage
your user interface and so forth.  But most of these revisions would
still be useful in that situation.  The current libpq does not cope well
with query strings containing multiple commands; it doesn't cope at all
with queries that return more than one type of tuple; it requires dummy
queries (wasting both processing time and network bandwidth) to check
for NOTIFY messages; and so forth.  None of those problems can be solved
just by moving calls to libpq into a separate thread.

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-29 15:04:26
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 1998-04-29 14:35:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-29 15:04:26
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous:From: Jose' Soares Da SilvaDate: 1998-04-29 14:31:23
Subject: jdbc vs. odbc performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group