Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: watts(at)humbug(dot)antnet(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Date: 1998-04-29 14:50:28
Message-ID: 8692.893861428@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

watts(at)humbug(dot)antnet(dot)com writes:
> I suggest the application already has fork or fork/exec to
> implement an asynchronous design.

True, if you don't mind assuming you have threads then you could
dedicate one thread to blocking in libpq while your other threads manage
your user interface and so forth. But most of these revisions would
still be useful in that situation. The current libpq does not cope well
with query strings containing multiple commands; it doesn't cope at all
with queries that return more than one type of tuple; it requires dummy
queries (wasting both processing time and network bandwidth) to check
for NOTIFY messages; and so forth. None of those problems can be solved
just by moving calls to libpq into a separate thread.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jose' Soares Da Silva 1998-04-29 15:04:26 Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous Message Tom Lane 1998-04-29 14:35:26 Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jose' Soares Da Silva 1998-04-29 15:04:26 Re: [INTERFACES] Access'97 and ODBC
Previous Message Jose' Soares Da Silva 1998-04-29 14:31:23 jdbc vs. odbc performance