X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8ED4758E6 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from postgresql.org ([64.49.215.8]) by localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8:10024]) (amavisd-new) with SMTP id 86271-06 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:35:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80989475B33 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:26:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1QGQg5u000190; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:26:42 -0500 (EST) To: Terry Lee Tucker Cc: Interfaces Subject: Re: Advice Needed In-reply-to: <3E5CE4FF.1060500@esc1.com> References: <3E5CE4FF.1060500@esc1.com> Comments: In-reply-to Terry Lee Tucker message dated "Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:02:07 -0500" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:26:42 -0500 Message-ID: <189.1046276802@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200302/115 X-Sequence-Number: 3736 Terry Lee Tucker writes: > [snip] > 1. Does this model make sense based on your work with libpq-fe and > postgres? Yes, it looks pretty standard. But you need to think harder about exactly what you intend to do when two people try to edit the same record concurrently. ("Use a cursor" does not answer that question at all.) That's a bit off-topic for pgsql-interfaces though; I'd recommend discussing it in pgsql-sql. > 2. We are only using a binary cursor for the edit operation. Does > this make sense? Not really. I'd not bother with binary cursors at all. You're just opening yourself up to portability problems, and you're not saving anything meaningful when you're fetching just one row. regards, tom lane