From: Peter Galbavy <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:32 +0100
Message-ID: <003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> (raw)
References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm coming around to the idea that the cleanest solution is to require
> *all* protocol messages, in both directions, to have an initial length
> word. That is, the general message format would look like
> <message type> 1 byte
> <payload length> number of following bytes (4 bytes MSB-first)
> ... message data as needed ...
Is there any message - speaking from a standpoint of a normal user and not a
source hacker WRT postgresql - where knowing the length of the response is
either unknown or is expensive (in buffering) to find out ? This would be
the only disadvantage I can immediately see.
Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick.
Peter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.galbavy@knowtion.net, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
In-Reply-To: <003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox