From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Badger <bruce_badger@badgerse.com>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:29:30 -0400
Message-ID: <7705.1050017370@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1050012887.1063.12.camel@alice>
References: <10478.1049927451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3E95A3CD.9080500@xythos.com>
<5564.1049998513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1050012887.1063.12.camel@alice>
Bruce Badger <bruce_badger@badgerse.com> writes:
> Is SYNC going to be a new kind of message? Is the SYNC response yet
> another?
Yes; no. SYNC response already exists: it's ReadyForQuery (Z).
> Either way, could this be used as a keep-alive for long-lived
> connections? (some users of the current Smalltalk drivers report that
> long lived connections over the Internet sometimes just die)
If you're worried about that, Q with an empty query already suffices,
though SYNC will work too.
I'd be inclined to think that such breakage isn't our problem though;
anyone suffering from it needs to fix their firewall timeouts ...
> Also, with the new protocol, will the number of affected rows be
> returned in a way that does not require parsing to fish it out?
I'm not planning to change the contents of messages more than I have to.
What's so hard about parsing "UPDATE nnn" ?
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, bruce_badger@badgerse.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
In-Reply-To: <7705.1050017370@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