| From: | Charles Cui <charles(dot)cui1984(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC 2018 proposal |
| Date: | 2018-03-13 04:29:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+SXE9sP1iHNp9_DFJzdbE0cszAA-QF8d-8GAUyoCA4q9KCsGw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-03-12 1:25 GMT-07:00 Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
> Hello Charles,
>
> > I am currently preparing a proposal for pg_thrift project. I noticed
> > that there are several protocols supported by thrift, which ones do we
> > have higher priority? I mean which ones I need to implement during
> > this project?
>
> Binary protocols, i.e. TBinaryProtocol and TCompactProtocol. The first
> one is a bit faster but more redundant, the second one is slower but
> more compact. It's your choice which one to implement first, but at
> least one binary protocol should be fully supported (ideally - both).
>
> As far as I'm aware other protocols are rarely used and are not fully
> implemented in most existing libraries.
>
Got it, thanks! it is helpful for the proposal.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander Alekseev
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-13 04:35:54 | Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-13 04:11:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |