X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5DBC747636C; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 93686476363; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3ADvg2L003626;
	Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol 
In-reply-to: <003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> 
References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
	message dated "Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:07:32 +0100"
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:57:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3625.1049983061@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-29.1 required=5.0
	tests=BAYES_00,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,
	REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham	version=2.50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
X-Archive-Number: 200304/328
X-Sequence-Number: 37818

"Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> writes:
> Is there any message - speaking from a standpoint of a normal user and not a
> source hacker WRT postgresql - where knowing the length of the response is
> either unknown or is expensive (in buffering) to find out ?

See my response to ljb --- I think that in practice people assemble each
message before sending anyway.  If you don't do it that way, you've got
a problem with recovering if you hit an error condition after sending a
partial message.

			regards, tom lane