To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign 
In-reply-to: <81124B76C0CF364EBAC6CD213ABEDEF71D316F@ARGON.edu.sollentuna.se> 
References: <81124B76C0CF364EBAC6CD213ABEDEF71D316F@ARGON.edu.sollentuna.se>
Comments: In-reply-to "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
	message dated "Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:21:17 +0100"
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:50:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4907.1047394225@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"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