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

Re: psqlodbc versioning

From: Mark Slagell <ms(at)iastate(dot)edu>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psqlodbc versioning
Date: 2004-07-08 20:59:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-odbc
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Could you show us some kind of specification about what this new lock 
> reporting interface would look like (what functions, what parameters, 
> etc.)?

I'll try to get some input from the vendor on this. I don't know what 
their source looks like, being just a local admin of one of their client 
sites -- and probably getting a bit too involved in things I have no 
control over.

> ... the whole concept of locks is sort of obsolete since PostgreSQL uses 
> multiversion concurrency control which does not require locks (loosely 
> speaking)...

Maybe this app is married to the lock concept because it has to work in 
a roughly equivalent way with various underlying database layers, and so 
tries to cling to the mechanisms they have in common.  The concurrency 
control idea makes a lot of sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if they 
are not aware of it or don't understand it.

Also they have things set up so that maybe a "session" ends up not 
meaning what it should. For instance, although the application has its 
own separate users and means of authenticating them, I am pretty sure it 
makes all postgres queries as a single generic user.

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.  I'll pass along all the 
information I can, and try to light a constructive fire under these guys.

   -- Mark

In response to

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-07-08 22:58:06
Subject: [Patch] First buffer overflow fixes
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-07-08 18:08:50
Subject: Re: psqlodbc versioning

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