| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A successor for PQgetssl |
| Date: | 2006-04-17 15:25:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1188.1145287526@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> I have to agree with Martijn here too. It's not all that expensive to
> provide read/write calls to abstract away the specific library being
> used (since psqlODBC, at least, couldn't care less which library is
> being used, really)
You're failing to consider async applications. AFAICS, the *minimum*
API would be
read
write
read ready?
write ready?
get socket so I can use it in select()
(very possibly there's some stuff I missed, considering I haven't
consumed any caffeine yet today...). And that's just considering
the data transport aspect of it. I'm still concerned that SSL-using
apps may wish to twiddle the SSL library in ways we don't even know
about.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-04-17 15:31:43 | Re: Is full_page_writes=off safe in conjunction with |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-17 15:07:26 | Re: A successor for PQgetssl |