From: | Вадим Горбачев <bmsdave(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal GSoC 2015 task: Allow access to the database via HTTP |
Date: | 2015-03-23 16:20:22 |
Message-ID: | CADmtSid6cbrzRYwjTEKctW4vb5nzPa1wR+kmr7gdz-jMExN4Og@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
as prompted to me, already there are solutions of this task: pgrest and
OpenResty
Then it isn't clear why this task is in TODO the sheet
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo...
Prompt what exactly is understood as "Allow access to the database via
HTTP"?
From what party to approach this task?
Whether it still also is actual?
Best Regards,
Vadim Gorbachov
2015-03-23 1:28 GMT+03:00 Вадим Горбачев <bmsdave(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Hi Team.
>
> I would like to solve a problem of "Allow access to the database via
> HTTP".
>
> But before drawing up the demand in GSOC I wanted to consult here.
> Therefore I will be grateful to comments from attendees here!
>
> 1. I think, will better use access to DB through the stand-alone program
> which not necessarily has to be on the same server. At least because it
> will give certain freedom in cluster systems.
>
> 2. Whether it is obligatory to use a programming language C for this
> purpose? After all as the stand-alone program ( frontend ) it has to be not
> necessarily written in the same programming language as the server (
> backend ). I would prefer to use the python language for writing as I
> consider that this language is more clear to system administrators + to
> bring much more simply editings in a code.
>
> 3. What you will advise what to pass a selection stage in GSOC 2015 from
> postgresql?)
>
> PS: my English is poor. I ask you to forgive me for it.
>
> Best Regards,
> Vadim Gorbachov
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-03-23 16:24:21 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-03-23 16:11:35 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |