Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2] (may be
	forged)) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA04225;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:33:00 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA11032;
	Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:30:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: jdale@fla.fujitsu.com
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-ports@postgreSQL.org,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Frontend/Backend Protocol 
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:01:39 -0700
	<3796C1D3.35DA43C8@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:30:31 -0400
Message-ID: <11030.932689831@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com> writes:
> And I get back:
> "R" 00 00 00 00  which indicates a successful connection

Looks good so far (I suppose you are using 'trust' authentication mode).

> However, when my process has read this, the postmaster displays the
> following error:

> FATAL 1:  Socket command type   unknown

> and the connection is closed.

No, the postmaster didn't send that; the backend did.  Looks like you
sent one byte too many, probably a null byte, and the backend received
it as the first input data byte.  Since it's not a valid protocol
command character, the backend gives up and dies.

> I assumed that the
> postmaster would fork a new postgres process to handle my connection

... it did ...

> and I should be expecting some data on the socket to tell me that the
> postgres process is ready for an SQL query.

You should have gotten a ReadyForQuery message if you are talking to
a 6.4 or later backend, and if you used the right protocol version
number in the connect request.  I speculate that you have an old server,
or you asked for protocol version 1, or you miscounted bytes and missed
the appearance of the ReadyForQuery ('Z') message.

			regards, tom lane