Re: [HACKERS] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
On 16 Mar 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote: Tom Lane kirjutas R, 14.03.2003 kell 19:15: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, just to throw out a wild idea: If you're talking about making large changes to the on-the-wire protocol. Have you considered using an existing database protocol? What I actually looked into was RDA, but I doubt that TDS would be any closer to our needs... I remember someone started cleaning up IO in order to move it into a separate module with the aim of making multiple implementations (RDA, TDS, XML, native JDBC wire protocol if it ever becomes a reality, etc.) possible. That was me, I did an initial cut of separating the FE/BE code from the rest, but ran short on time. Hoping to get back to it one of these days. My primary interest was in getting the DRDA protocol supported in a clean fashion. For those mentioning RDA, I believe that standard is pushing up the daisys. DRDA is about the only standards game in town at this point, it has client side support from just about every vendor (IBM obviously, Oracle, Sybase, MS) and server side support of some sort from DB2 and a couple others (MS SNA gateway, for example is/has a DRDA server). Mostly through gateways and add on products, but it's a far cry better than any other effort I'm aware of. While not exactly pertinent to new wire protocol this effort if completed would make it much easier to have backwards compatibility on the wire level. I think this would be a good idea all around, and would make future changes/replacements to FE/BE protocol a lot cleaner. Hannu Brian ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3 schedule
On 13 Apr 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote: On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 03:04, Brian Bruns wrote: On 11 Apr 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote: IIRC someone started work on modularising the network-related parts with a goal of supporting DRDA (DB2 protocol) and others in future. That was me, although I've been bogged down lately, and haven't been able to get back to it. Has any of your modularisation work got into CVS yet ? No, Bruce didn't like the way I did certain things, and had some qualms about the value of supporting multiple wire protocols IIRC. Plus the patch was not really ready for primetime yet. I'm hoping to get back to it soon and sync it with the latest CVS, and clean up the odds and ends. DRDA, btw, is not just a DB2 protocol but an opengroup spec that hopefully will someday be *the* standard on the wire database protocol. DRDA handles prepare/execute and is completely binary in representation, among other advantages. What about extensibility - is there some predefined way of adding new types ? Not really, there is some ongoing standards activity adding some new features. The list of supported types is pretty impressive, anything in particular you are looking for? Also, does it handle NOTIFY ? I don't know the answer to this. The spec is pretty huge, so it may, but I haven't seen it. Even if it is supported as a secondary protocol, I believe there is alot of value in having a single database protocol standard. (why else would I be doing it!). I'm also looking into what it will take to do the same for MySQL and Firebird. Hopefully they will be receptive to the idea as well. Hannu Cheers, Brian ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [HACKERS] 7.3 schedule
On 11 Apr 2002, Hannu Krosing wrote: IIRC someone started work on modularising the network-related parts with a goal of supporting DRDA (DB2 protocol) and others in future. That was me, although I've been bogged down lately, and haven't been able to get back to it. DRDA, btw, is not just a DB2 protocol but an opengroup spec that hopefully will someday be *the* standard on the wire database protocol. DRDA handles prepare/execute and is completely binary in representation, among other advantages. Brian ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
