From: Bruce Badger <bbadger@openskills.com>
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date: 11 Apr 2003 08:05:26 +1000
Message-ID: <1050012327.1064.6.camel@alice> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5564.1049998513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E95A3CD.9080500@xythos.com>
<5564.1049998513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 04:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, as far as network roundtrips go, it's always been true that you
> don't really have to wait for the backend's response before sending the
> next command. The proposal to decouple SYNC from individual commands
> should make this easier: you fire off N commands "blind", then a SYNC.
> When the sync response comes back, it's done. If any of the commands
> fail, all else up to the SYNC will be ignored, so you don't have the
> problem of commands executing against an unexpected state.
Is SYNC going to be a new kind of message? Is the SYNC response yet
another?
Either way, could this be used as a keep-alive for long-lived
connections? (some users of the current Smalltalk drivers report that
long lived connections over the Internet sometimes just die)
Also, with the new protocol, will the number of affected rows be
returned in a way that does not require parsing to fish it out?
Thanks,
Bruce
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 188B) download
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: bbadger@openskills.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
In-Reply-To: <1050012327.1064.6.camel@alice>
* 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