From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <199804291604.MAA18436@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
To: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
In-Reply-To: <8596.893860094@sss.pgh.pa.us> from "Tom Lane" at Apr 29,
	98 10:28:14 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> That was something I asked about a few days ago, and didn't get any
> responses suggesting that anyone thought it was likely to happen.
> 
> We would need wholesale changes everywhere in the protocol to support
> concurrent queries: answers and errors coming back would have to be
> tagged to indicate which query they apply to.  The lack of a tag in
> the cancel message isn't the controlling factor.
> 
> In the current system architecture, much the easiest way to execute
> concurrent queries is to open up more than one connection.  There's
> nothing that says a frontend process can't fire up multiple backend
> processes.  I think this is probably sufficient, because I don't
> foresee such a thing becoming really popular anyway.

If we can remove the exec() in 6.4, that will make backend startup even
quicker.


-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)