On 2 April 2011 11:17, John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > what you describe is neither postgres nor SQL > > perhaps you should look at a storage engine like BerkeleyDB I hope that not everybody dismisses this mail thread because of the above response. We are deriving our product from pgsql. And since we are customizing pgsql to our proprietary telecom products, we are using things that are not designed for that purpose. For example, we are using SPI to come up with an embedded client. I was basically trying to find out if there are better alternatives. Have the pgsql development team thought about embedded clients and is SPI the way to go? What we are trying to achieve is that a single application can work as an ordinary client or an embedded client. For example, if we implement libpq using SPI interface then any libpq client can behave as an ordinary client (using current libpq library) or as an embedded client (by making use of libpq over SPI - which we are implementing). I have no clue as to why you have recommended BerkeleyDB in this context! What I have described is pgsql and the applications all use SQL queries. If somethings are not clear and requires further elaboration from me, kindly let me know. Providing inputs to extend pgsql in a proper well-defined way will help us to contribute back the feature to pgsql (if my company decides so and if pgsql needs it.) Even if the feature is not contributed back, if the pgsql dev team finds it a useful feature, anybody can implement it. Thank you. Rgds, anna -- 'ààààà ààààààà àààààààààà, ààààà ààààààààààààààà àààààààààà. àààààà ààààààà àààààààààà, àààààà àààààààà ààààààààà ààààààààà.' ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ - ààààààààààààà àààààààààààààà http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J71uLUvjnU&feature=related -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
