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 5C70D475F5F
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:01:09 -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 h2C616ub024692;
	Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:01:07 -0500 (EST)
To: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign 
In-reply-to: <20030311225523.GB1833@filer> 
References: <1942.1047350265@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200303110244.h2B2i1j15763@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<50149.80.177.99.193.1047375273.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk>
	<4977.1047395167@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20030311225523.GB1833@filer>
Comments: In-reply-to Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>
	message dated "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:55:23 -0800"
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:01:06 -0500
Message-ID: <24691.1047448866@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200303/462
X-Sequence-Number: 36708

Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
> doing more or less what other database vendors have done in response
> to these underspecified issues is probably a sensible course of action
> when there's no other obviously better answer.

A good point, indeed.  Who wants to do the legwork to check up on this?

			regards, tom lane