* Dave Page (dpage@vale-housing.co.uk) wrote:
> > What does the wireline protocol implementation in the ODBC
> > driver do that it can't get through libpq? I can certainly
> > understand the double-copying issue (I complained about that
> > myself when first starting to use libpq) but I think that
> > could be fixed without that much difficulty. Were there other things?
>
> I don't know if we are currently using any features that libpq cannot
> offer.
>
> I do know that although the older driver basically worked with libpq,
> major features (such as updateable cursors) were broken beyond feasible
> repair. They would have had to have been almost entirely redesigned, and
> given that we have enough trouble finding developers with enough time
> and the ability to fix even relatively simple bugs in the driver it
> seemed more sensible to go with the solution that worked properly, yet
> still offered the features (v3, SSL, Kerberos) that we wanted from
Updatable cursors isn't something supported in the core system yet but
is clearly useful and is part of the spec (it seems anyway). It'd be
really nice to implement this as part of core instead of having it be
reimplemented by multiple different people. I think it'd be time well
spent to work on implementing it in core than redesigning it in the ODBC
driver to work with the current libpq. As I understand it, this would
probably also be useful to the JDBC people.
> libpq. The only downside is that we might have to update for any future
> protocols again, but even that is not essential given that the server
> will fall back to v2 and presumably v3 when v4 is written.
Perhaps not *essential* but certainly a good thing to do as it can
provide performance and functionality improvements...
Thanks,
Stephen
