To: "Jason M. Felice" <jfelice@cronosys.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for
	comments
In-reply-to: <20030416131250.GB5273@argo.eraserhead.net> 
References: <10770.1050448110@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20030416124452.C16683@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk>
	<20030416131250.GB5273@argo.eraserhead.net>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jason M. Felice" <jfelice@cronosys.com>
	message dated "Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:12:50 -0400"
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:05:49 -0400
Message-ID: <18105.1050505549@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Jason M. Felice" <jfelice@cronosys.com> writes:
> 46.2.3 - Is bind required when the portal has no parameters?  It would be
> useful to be able to avoid the bind message in this case.

Yes, because you don't have a portal till you bind.  I don't see that
avoiding the message is an issue --- it's only a few bytes, and you
don't need to wait for a round-trip time.  In practice you're going to
bundle it with either the Parse or the Execute, I would think.

> 46.2.9 - SSL - Is there any way to detect the start of an SSL session sooner?

I am not personally willing to take any responsibility for altering the
SSL startup protocol.  If someone else wants to do it, fine.  I'm not
real sure how you are going to "stuff bytes back into a buffer" though;
at the very least, that's going to require unseemly intimacy with the
SSL library.  Also, it's not obvious to me that the first few bytes of
TLS' ClientHello can reliably be distinguished from our StartupMessage
... especially given that both protocols put version numbers, lengths,
and other not-very-constant data here.

			regards, tom lane