X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8404F47635B; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 05:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailstore-1.mail.knowledge.com (frida.london.knowtion.net [213.170.2.69]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59502476351; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 05:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [213.155.153.61] (helo=PETERDESKTOP) by mailstore-1.mail.knowledge.com with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 193Y1t-0004Wk-00; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:33 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> From: "Peter Galbavy" To: , , "Tom Lane" References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:32 +0100 Organization: Knowtion Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-24.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_30,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200304/324 X-Sequence-Number: 37814 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 > 1 byte > 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