> I do not think this is a good idea. If the purpose of libpq is not
> to abstract away the wire-level protocol, then what is its purpose?
IMHO what currently libpq API does is actually dealing with limited
use cases, not abstraction of the protocol.
> And how could such a tool avoid breaking libpq, anyway? For one
> example, successfully sending any command message normally results in
> an internal state change in libpq (so that it knows what to do with
> the response). Your proposed API here doesn't cover that. Nor does
> it cover actually dealing with the response, which I think would be
> needed in most scenarios where you're trying to deal in custom messages.
Yes, I did not proposed about the message response handling. That's
> If you feel a need to be sending your own messages, I think a locally
> hacked fork of libpq is a better answer.
I have already done it. I just thought it would be useful to share
this if there are someone else who are willing to do the same thing
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: