On 14 January 2015 at 08:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think that kind of solution isn't likely to be satisfying. The amount
> of porting work is just not going to be worth the cost. And it won't be
> easily hideable in the API at all as the callers will expect a normal
> fd.
>
All that consumers
On 2015-01-14 08:32:19 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> > I'm worried about libpq blocking in some circumstances; particularly
> > around SSL renegotiations.
> > This came up while writing an async postgres library for lua, I
> > realised that this c
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daurnimator wrote:
> I'm worried about libpq blocking in some circumstances; particularly
> around SSL renegotiations.
> This came up while writing an async postgres library for lua, I
> realised that this code was dangerous:
> https://github.com/daurnimator/cqueues
I'm worried about libpq blocking in some circumstances; particularly
around SSL renegotiations.
This came up while writing an async postgres library for lua, I
realised that this code was dangerous:
https://github.com/daurnimator/cqueues-pgsql/blob/ee9c3fc85c94669b8128386d99d730fe93d9dbad/cqueues-p
