Re: Alternative new libpq interface.

Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> writes:
>> My gut feeling about this is that if a complete rewrite is being
>> considered, it ought to be done as a new interface library that's
>> independent of libpq.

> I was thinking more along the lines of massaging the current libpq to
> support the new interface/features rather than starting with a blank
> slate. As you say libpq is well debugged and there are a lot of fine
> details in there I don't want to mess with.

No reason you shouldn't steal liberally from the existing code, of
course.

> My aims are to get the OO features and streaming behaviour working with
> a hopefully stable interface.

> Does that affect your gut feeling?

The thing that was bothering me was offhand suggestions about "let's
reimplement the existing libpq API atop some redesigned lower layer".
I think that's a recipe for trouble, in that it could introduce bugs
and incompatibilities that will break existing applications. I'd
rather see us leave libpq alone and start a separate development
thread for the new version. That also has the advantage that you're
not hogtied by compatibility considerations.

regards, tom lane