Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dobes Vandermeer
Subject Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)
Date
Msg-id CADbG_jawsDdzy=x-fZs+T_Dt_XFPyaRD9Wj1LH=EHDcdxSaCAg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)  (Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)  (Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
> Any enhancement here that can't be used with libpq via, say, drop-in
> .so seems unworkable to me, and that's why any solution that is
> basically proxying to the database is basically a non-starter outside
> the very earliest prototyping stages.  The tuple scanning and protocol
> semantics can and even should remain the same, especially at first.

I should add: proxying could work well if libpq had all the right
hooks. The server could remain ignorant.  Regardless, upstream changes
result.
 
Just to be clear, what you are saying that writing a process that accepts requests by HTTP and translates them into requests using the existing protocol to send to the server would have unacceptable performance?  Or is there something else about it that is a non-starter?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: Http Frontend implemented using pgsql?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes