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

Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mikko Tiihonen <mikko(dot)tiihonen(at)nitorcreations(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements
Date: 2012-01-25 19:43:03
Message-ID: CAHyXU0yBx5_WUZzjmJo_UyoPpX1mabfbPVDa_3NEVpQiW3kGcw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:54:00PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > I specifically want to avoid any sort of per-connection
>> > negotation, except the "max format version supported",
>> > because it will mess up multiplexed usage of single connection.
>> > Then they need to either disabled advanced formats completely,
>> > or still do it per-query somehow (via GUCs?) which is mess.
>>
>> Being able to explicitly pick format version other than the one the
>> application was specifically written against adds a lot of complexity
>> and needs to be justified.  Maybe you're trying to translate data
>> between two differently versioned servers?  I'm trying to understand
>> the motive behind your wanting finer grained control of picking format
>> version...
>
> You mean if client has written with version N formats, but connects
> to server with version N-1 formats?  True, simply not supporting
> such case simplifies client-side API.
>
> But note that it does not change anything on protocol level, it's purely
> client-API specific.  It may well be that some higher-level APIs
> (JDBC, Npgsql, Psycopg) may support such downgrade, but with lower-level
> API-s (raw libpq), it may be optional whether the client wants to
> support such usage or not.

well, I see the following cases:
1) Vserver > Vapplication: server downgrades wire formats to
applications version
2) Vapplication > Vlibpq > Vserver: since the application is
reading/writing formats the server can't understand, an error should
be raised if they are used in either direction
3) Vlibpq >= VApplication > Vserver: same as above, but libpq can
'upconvert' low version wire format to application's wire format or
error otherwise.

By far, the most common cause of problems (both in terms of severity
and frequency) is case #1.  #3 allows a 'compatibility mode' via
libpq, but that comes at significant cost of complexity since libpq
needs to be able to translate wire formats up (but not down).  #2/3 is
a less common problem though as it's more likely the application can
be adjusted to get up to speed: so to keep things simple we can maybe
just error out in those scenarios.

In the database, we need to maintain outdated send/recv functions
basically forever and as much as possible try and translate old wire
format data to and from newer backend structures (maybe in very
specific cases that will be impossible such that the application is
SOL, but that should be rare).  All send/recv functions, including
user created ones need to be stamped with a version token (database
version?).  With the versions of the application, libpq, and all
server functions, we can determine all wire formats as long as we
assume the application's targeted database version represents all the
wire formats it was using.

My good ideas stop there: the exact mechanics of how the usable set of
functions are determined, how exactly the adjusted type look ups will
work, etc. would all have to be sorted out.  Most of the nastier parts
though (protocol changes notwithstanding) are not in libpq, but the
server.  There's just no quick fix on the client side I can see.

merlin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2012-01-25 19:47:49
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parameterized inner paths
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2012-01-25 19:24:10
Subject: Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements

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