On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Dobes Vandermeer <dobesv(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >> Virtual hosts. Same port.>> I think SPDY or like-protocols [...] give a
> crisp treatment to
> >> interactive, stateful workloads involving
> >> back-and-forth between client and server with multiplexing, fixing
> >> some problems with the hacks in HTTP-land from before.
> > It sounds like at some level you're really talking about replacing the
> > built-in protocol with SPDY because SPDY is possibly a better baseline
> > updating the existing protocol. That's an interesting idea, I think this
> > project could evolve in that direction if there's demand for it.
> If only so there is a smaller set of arbitrary decisions to make about
> how to delimit messages...but if SPDY doesn't get widely deployed, or
> exacts an unacceptable performance penalty, it is game over.
Well, in our case HTTP is a clear win (but not replacement) and SPDY a
potential one (even as a replacement). Even if SPDY is not widely adopted
it could still replace FEBE if there's a clear advantage to using it, I
don't know enough to make the call right now.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dobes Vandermeer||Date: 2012-03-30 15:17:33|
|Subject: Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-03-30 14:31:54|
|Subject: Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized