From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:28:14 -0400
Message-ID: <8596.893860094@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9804281803.AA00362@dolomite.paracel.com>
ocie@paracel.com writes:
> You didn't come right out and say it, but are you intending to support
> multiple queries within a connection? I gather not. Not that I'm
> suggesting that this be done, as it seems this would complicate the
> user's application and the backend. With only one possible OOB
> message, you can't tell it which query to cancel.
That was something I asked about a few days ago, and didn't get any
responses suggesting that anyone thought it was likely to happen.
We would need wholesale changes everywhere in the protocol to support
concurrent queries: answers and errors coming back would have to be
tagged to indicate which query they apply to. The lack of a tag in
the cancel message isn't the controlling factor.
In the current system architecture, much the easiest way to execute
concurrent queries is to open up more than one connection. There's
nothing that says a frontend process can't fire up multiple backend
processes. I think this is probably sufficient, because I don't
foresee such a thing becoming really popular anyway.
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, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
In-Reply-To: <8596.893860094@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