| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Annamalai Gurusami <annamalai(dot)gurusami(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Merged Model for libpq |
| Date: | 2011-04-04 05:18:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4D99549E.2060207@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 04/04/11 12:43, Annamalai Gurusami wrote:
> What we are trying to achieve is that a single application can work as
> an ordinary client or an embedded client.
That makes a lot of sense, and would be useful for testing too.
> I have no clue as to why you have recommended BerkeleyDB in this
> context! What I have described is pgsql and the applications all use
> SQL queries.
Yeah... I'd think that FireBird, SQLite or embedded MySQL would make a
lot more sense than BDB. Personally, I suspect that anybody who suggests
Berkeley DB for a job hasn't programmed with it!
I can personally see some advantages in being able to use the same API
for in-database and outside-database clients. The biggest issue, though,
is transaction management. Until/unless Pg gains support for autonomous
transactions, there are operations that can be performed in libpq that
just don't make sense in an spi context.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shoaib Mir | 2011-04-04 05:35:34 | shared folder in Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Annamalai Gurusami | 2011-04-04 04:43:02 | Re: Merged Model for libpq |