Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol

From: Bruce Badger <bbadger(at)openskills(dot)com>
To: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date: 2003-04-10 22:05:26
Message-ID: 1050012327.1064.6.camel@alice (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 04:15, Tom Lane wrote:

> Well, as far as network roundtrips go, it's always been true that you
> don't really have to wait for the backend's response before sending the
> next command.  The proposal to decouple SYNC from individual commands
> should make this easier: you fire off N commands "blind", then a SYNC.
> When the sync response comes back, it's done.  If any of the commands
> fail, all else up to the SYNC will be ignored, so you don't have the
> problem of commands executing against an unexpected state.

Is SYNC going to be a new kind of message?  Is the SYNC response yet
another?

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)

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?

Thanks,
	Bruce

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce BadgerDate: 2003-04-10 22:14:46
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-10 22:04:48
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Bruce BadgerDate: 2003-04-10 22:14:46
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-10 22:04:48
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group