From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Brian Bruns <camber(at)ais(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DRDA, network protocol, and documentation |
Date: | 2002-02-07 18:57:45 |
Message-ID: | 1013108265.6994.19.camel@taru.tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 15:35, Brian Bruns wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
>
> > What is the relation of DRDA to SQL/CLI (SQL Call Level Interface, part
> > 3 of the standard) ?
>
> DRDA, SQL 9x, and SQL/CLI (ODBC) form a complimentary set of standards.
>
> SQL 9x obviously specifies the SQL language and constructs. SQL/CLI
> addressses application portability with an API. DRDA on the other hand is
> a bits on the wire protocol. So one would have a program using the ODBC
> API to send DRDA over the network to invoke SQL on the server.
But I guess that you can't fake PREPARE/EXECUTE on client side anymore
if you want to be DRDA compatible?
Or is DRDA so low-level that it does not care what info it carries ?
Does DRDA have standard representation of datatypes on wire ?
If so, how will postgres extendable datatypes fit in there ?
I know that postgres's system tables have two sets of type i/o functions
typinput | regproc |
typoutput | regproc |
typreceive | regproc |
typsend | regproc |
which are currently initialised to the same real functions
hannu=# select count(*) from pg_type where typoutput <> typsend or
typinput <> typreceive;
count
-------
0
(1 row)
I suspect thet the typreceive and typsend were planned for some common
network representation, but such usage has probaly gone untested for a
very long time.
----------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-07 18:58:29 | Re: Summary of new configuration file and data directory locations |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-02-07 18:54:47 | Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server |