Hi, On 2019-07-27 22:32:37 +0200, David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:15:23PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > 4) We develop a fairly minimal pure perl database driver, that doesn't > > depend on DBI. Include it somewhere as part of the test code, instead > > of src/interfaces, so it's clearer that it's not ment as an actual > > official driver. > > There's one that may or may not need updates that's basically just a > wrapper around libpq. > > https://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/gborg/pgperl/stable/
That's pretty darn old however (2002). Needs to be compiled. And is GPL v1 / Artistic v1 licensed. I think all of the other alternatives are better than this. > > The obvious disadvantage is that this would be a noticable amount of > > code. But it's also not that crazily much. > > > > One big advantage I can see is that that'd make it a lot easier to > > write low-level protocol tests. Right now we either don't have them, > > or they have to go through libpq, which quite sensibly doesn't expose > > all the details to the outside. IMO it'd be really nice if we had a > > way to to write low level protocol tests, especially for testing > > things like the v2 protocol. > > That sounds worth doing as a separate thing What would be the point of doing this separately? If we have a small driver for writing protocol tests, why would we want something separate for the tap tests? > and an obvious application of it would be something like a febesmith, > which would get us a better idea as to whether we've implemented the > protocol we say we have. Hm, not convinced that's useful. And fairly sure that's pretty independent of what I was writing about. Greetings, Andres Freund