> 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
another story.

> 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
like me.

Best regards,
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to