Re: Proposal: RETURNING primary_key()

On 3 April 2016 at 21:56, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:

> Dave,
>
> * Dave Cramer (pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com) wrote:
> > On 3 April 2016 at 15:35, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > > Not generally much of a JDBC user myself, but the inability to avoid
> > > polling for LISTEN notifications is a pretty big annoyance, which I
> just
> > > ran into with a client. I understand that -ng has a way to avoid that,
> > > even for SSL connections.
> >
> > Yes, it is a custom api. Easy enough to add. Is this something of
> interest ?
>
> I'd say that there is definite interest in this and there's a lot of
> conversation about it on the interwebs (stackoverflow, etc).
>
> My understanding is that the problem is actually with the SSL library
> that the JDBC driver uses and that it basically lies about if there are
> bytes available for reading (claiming that there never is by always
> returning zero). The -ng driver, as I understand it, uses a newer SSL
> library which better supports asking if there are bytes available to
> read.
>
>
Hmmm. that complicates things...

Async notification is the easier part, I wasn't aware that the ssl library
had this problem though

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com