X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90897474E4F for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82454474E42 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:29:33 -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 h3ANTU2L007706; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:29:30 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Badger Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol 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> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Badger message dated "11 Apr 2003 08:14:46 +1000" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:29:30 -0400 Message-ID: <7705.1050017370@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, 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: 200304/77 X-Sequence-Number: 4016 Bruce Badger 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