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

Re: binary protocol, again

From: "P(dot) Christeas" <xrg(at)linux(dot)gr>
To: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: binary protocol, again
Date: 2012-07-20 17:34:10
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: psycopg
On Friday 20 July 2012, you wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 6:09 PM, P. Christeas <xrg(at)linux(dot)gr> wrote:
> >> 3. using PQexecParams instead PQexec
> > 
> > Yes, when query is eligible.
> Uhm... what is an eligible query?
One that is single (not multi with semicolons), and NOT a "COMMENT" or 
"EXECUTE" one.

> Are you changing the behaviour of the current cursor class or
> introducing a new one? I'd go most definitely for the second, as I'm
> afraid the first would break a lot of the existing usage.
 Introducing a new one "cursor_bin", as we've discussed before.

> In particular, what I'd like to see is a protocol ISQLParam, to live
> together with the current ISQLQuote, in order to create a clear
> distinction between the capabilities of the two cursors and avoid
> bloating the current adapters interface.

Hmm. I named it "BSQLQuote", but I guess "ISQLParam is a much better name. 
I'll change that.

> As a reference, here is the original message of mine, highlighting
> some of the features we may get by splitting the two protocols:
> <>.
> Cheers,
> -- Daniele

Say NO to spam and viruses. Stop using Microsoft Windows!

In response to


psycopg by date

Next:From: Daniele VarrazzoDate: 2012-07-20 17:42:21
Subject: Re: binary protocol, again
Previous:From: Daniele VarrazzoDate: 2012-07-20 17:21:39
Subject: Re: binary protocol, again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group