Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>> Shouldn't that generally be done by extending libpq to add the required
>> functionality?
> The thought that came to me was that maybe we need a separate library
> that handles the lower level operations (a "fe/be" library, if you will)
> which can
Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 19 August 2016 at 14:17, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > I would like to proppse to export these functions in libpq.
> >
> > pqPutMsgStart
> > pqPutMsgEnd
> > pqPutc
> > pqPuts
> > pqPutInt
> > pqPutnchar
> > pqFlush
> > pqHandleSendFailure
> >
> > I think this would be useful
On 19 August 2016 at 14:17, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> I would like to proppse to export these functions in libpq.
>
> pqPutMsgStart
> pqPutMsgEnd
> pqPutc
> pqPuts
> pqPutInt
> pqPutnchar
> pqFlush
> pqHandleSendFailure
>
> I think this would be useful to create a tool/library which needs to
> handle
> 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 li
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> I would like to proppse to export these functions in libpq.
> pqPutMsgStart
> pqPutMsgEnd
> pqPutc
> pqPuts
> pqPutInt
> pqPutnchar
> pqFlush
> pqHandleSendFailure
> I think this would be useful to create a tool/library which needs to
> handle frontend/backend protocol mess