Re: Merged Model for libpq

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Annamalai Gurusami <annamalai(dot)gurusami(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Merged Model for libpq
Date: 2011-04-04 05:18:22
Message-ID: 4D99549E.2060207@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 04/04/11 12:43, Annamalai Gurusami wrote:

> What we are trying to achieve is that a single application can work as
> an ordinary client or an embedded client.

That makes a lot of sense, and would be useful for testing too.

> I have no clue as to why you have recommended BerkeleyDB in this
> context! What I have described is pgsql and the applications all use
> SQL queries.

Yeah... I'd think that FireBird, SQLite or embedded MySQL would make a
lot more sense than BDB. Personally, I suspect that anybody who suggests
Berkeley DB for a job hasn't programmed with it!

I can personally see some advantages in being able to use the same API
for in-database and outside-database clients. The biggest issue, though,
is transaction management. Until/unless Pg gains support for autonomous
transactions, there are operations that can be performed in libpq that
just don't make sense in an spi context.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shoaib Mir 2011-04-04 05:35:34 shared folder in Hot Standby
Previous Message Annamalai Gurusami 2011-04-04 04:43:02 Re: Merged Model for libpq