X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEE9475E4D for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:15:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2EHF6ub021986; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) To: Greg Stark Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign In-reply-to: <87r89ac6s4.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> References: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3E6EEA9B.3050201@xythos.com> <27307.1047485980@sss.pgh.pa.us> <87r89ac6s4.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv> Comments: In-reply-to Greg Stark message dated "14 Mar 2003 10:22:19 -0500" Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:15:06 -0500 Message-ID: <21985.1047662106@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200303/616 X-Sequence-Number: 36862 Greg Stark writes: > So, just to throw out a wild idea: If you're talking about making large > changes to the on-the-wire protocol. Have you considered using an existing > database protocol? Yeah, I have. Didn't look promising --- there's no percentage unless we're 100% compatible, which creates a lot of problems (eg, can't ship type OIDs to frontend anymore). What I actually looked into was RDA, but I doubt that TDS would be any closer to our needs... regards, tom lane