Re: libpq and prepared statements progress for 8.0

The odbc driver must be doing the same thing, as well I suspect pgadmin
has a protocol stack built into it as well?

There is a jdbc driver for postgresql on sourceforge that does use
libpq. The fact that it is not widely used should be educational.

Dave
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 01:11, Greg Stark wrote:
> Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
>
> > > Well benefits that boil down to "Java sucks" aren't very convincing. Perl
> > > suffers from no such handicap.
> >
> > Arguing that Java-specific benefits are not convincing benefits for a JDBC
> > driver because you don't get them in Perl seems a bit odd to me. You're not
> > implementing the driver in Perl!
>
> Er, we're kind of on two different wavelengths here. What I'm trying to
> determine are what are the benefits of writing a pure-perl driver versus one
> that implements the protocol in a C module, versus one that merely interfaces
> with libpq.
>
> The current Perl module interfaces with libpq. The closest analogue to use for
> comparison is the JDBC driver which is a pure-Java implementation. So the
> benefits and disadvantages the JDBC driver faces are useful data points.
> However benefits that arise purely because of quirks of Java and don't relate
> to Perl are less relevant than benefits and disadvantages that are more
> general.
>
> I wasn't trying to criticize the decisions behind the JDBC implementation. It
> may well be that the choice that makes sense for Java isn't the same as the
> choice that makes sense in other languages. Or it may be that there are
> lessons that can be learned from Java that generalize to other languages and
> a pure perl implementation may make sense.
--
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561
www.postgresintl.com