Re: Alternative new libpq interface.
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>
From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Chris Bitmead <chris@bitmead.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, pgsql-oo@postgresql.org
Date: 2000-07-06T12:35:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote: > > -- > > > 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. > > My aims are to get the OO features and streaming behaviour working with > a hopefully stable interface. > > Does that affect your gut feeling? Your error observations are > significant and I think they dismiss my 1st suggestion. That leaves the > possibilities of the whole new interface versus massaging the current > interface with streaming/grouping APIs. cp -rp libpq libpg;cvs add libpg? if nothing else, it would give a template to build from without risking problems to current apps using libpq ... I'm not 100% certain that I'm reading Tom correct, but by 'independent of libpq', I'm taking it that libpg wouldn't need libpq to compile ... ?