Re: A few more questions

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Chris Smith <chris(at)mindiq(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A few more questions
Date: 2004-02-14 21:30:25
Message-ID: 1076794225.6785.92.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 20:09, Chris Smith wrote:
> Here are a few more questions to throw out.
>
> 1. There's a comment in AbstractJdbc1Connection saying "TODO: handle
> transaction status". Did someone have something specific in mind regarding
> how transaction status was to be "handled"?
>
> 2. What's the oldest pgsql version that we intend to support with the drivers
> in 7.4? Is it 7.0? 6.x?

7.2 is about as far back as I'd like to see handled
>
> 3. For someone who knows the v3 protocol; there are a number of cases where
> multiple queries are issued by one statement in the driver. My understanding
> is that this is not allowed in extended query. Does that mean that we're
> stuck with multiple round-trips if we substitute extended query? Or may I
> send multiple consecutive parse, bind, and execute commands without an
> intervening read of the result; and then read all the results at once?
>
> This latter bit seems to me like it risks walking into a trap where I'm
> blocked on my send buffer waiting for the server to read more of a statement,
> and the server is blocked on its send buffer waiting for me to read the
> results from a previous execute. But basically, I'm thinking there has to be
> a way in v3 extended query to avoid this problem; otherwise, it would be a
> potentially serious performance issue with no solution. Is there a way?
>
> 4. As I plan the changes I'd like to make for v3 protocol support, it's
> starting to look tempting to segregate a good bit of the code into separate
> classes for v2 and v3. Thus, we'd have:
>
> V2QueryExecutor - For v2 code
> V3QueryExecutor - For v3 code
> QueryExecutorUtil - For code shared between both classes above
Any reason why you wouldn't extend V*QueryExecuter from
BaseQueryExecutor ?
>
> and the same for AbstractJdbc*Statement and AbstractJdbc*ResultSet. Would
> this meet with objections if I tried to get this incorporated into the actual
> drivers?
These are a bit different, not sure what you have in mind here, but the
reason they are named like that is to allow you to build under various
JDK's, look in the build.xml file to see how that is handled.

Dave
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2004-02-14 21:32:20 Re: Object serialization and postgres tables,
Previous Message Kris Jurka 2004-02-14 19:30:46 Re: Fw: PATCH (Re: Startup message issues)