From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:50:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4907.1047394225@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81124B76C0CF364EBAC6CD213ABEDEF71D316F@ARGON.edu.sollentuna.se>
References: <81124B76C0CF364EBAC6CD213ABEDEF71D316F@ARGON.edu.sollentuna.se>
"Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> The general idea was to make a framework there to make it easier to add
> something like that in the future. Something that came up when adding
> the SSL negotiation - since that was very kludgy to do with the current
> protocol. But again, if you foresee that no othe rfeatures will require
> negotiation at that early stage, it's probably overkill.
I can't think of anything except compression that could be interesting
at that early stage, so I'm not seeing a reason to invent a general
negotiation mechanism. Even if we thought we needed one, we don't have
a lot of flexibility at that stage of the game, because neither side yet
knows what version the other is, and so assuming that the other side
knows of the mechanism is bogus. The existing method for requesting SSL
is a tad klugy, granted, but I'm not sure we can do any better for
transport-option negotiation.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mha@sollentuna.net, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
In-Reply-To: <4907.1047394225@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox