Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
From: Bruce Badger <bruce_badger@badgerse.com>
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
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>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 11 Apr 2003 08:14:46 +1000
Message-Id: <1050012887.1063.12.camel@alice>
Mime-Version: 1.0

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