X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from jester.inquent.com (unknown [216.208.117.7]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F59475D0F; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:20:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jester.inquent.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2AJKHee036006; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:20:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rbt@rbt.ca) Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign From: Rod Taylor To: Tom Lane Cc: PostgreSQL Development , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VM78m/2Mbud7aV7UGHvX" Organization: Message-Id: <1047324016.99075.31.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 10 Mar 2003 14:20:17 -0500 X-Archive-Number: 200303/369 X-Sequence-Number: 36615 --=-VM78m/2Mbud7aV7UGHvX Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > * Backend's ReadyForQuery message (Z message) should carry an indication > of current transaction status (idle/in transaction/in aborted transaction) > so that frontend need not guess at state. Perhaps also indicate > autocommit status. (Is there anything else that frontends would Really > Like To Know?) Could it include transaction depth with the assumption nested transactions will arrive at some point? > * XML support? If we do anything, I'd want some extensible solution to > allowing multiple query-result output formats from the backend, not an > XML-specific hack. For one thing, that would allow the actual appearance > of any XML support to happen later. > One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're > willing to expend on backwards compatibility. The path of least > resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol > revisions in the past: the backend will be able to handle both old and new > protocols (so it can talk to old clients) but libpq would be revised to > speak only the new protocol (so new/recompiled clients couldn't talk to > old backends). We've gotten away with this approach in the past, but the > last time was release 6.4. I fully expect to hear more complaints now. I wouldn't worry about backward compatibility complaints too much BUT I'd be tempted to make a startup packet that will allow libpq to revert back to old protocols easily enough for the future so that we can do=20 incremental changes to the protocol. --=20 Rod Taylor PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc --=-VM78m/2Mbud7aV7UGHvX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA+bOVw6DETLow6vwwRAj7SAJwP8dALe5T2KFOUsvEEBTKifyo/UgCfQSB3 6ub05hkXdYrjbxShp07Hk28= =/q+B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VM78m/2Mbud7aV7UGHvX--