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

Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol

From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>,<pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date: 2003-04-10 09:07:32
Message-ID: 003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$ (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm coming around to the idea that the cleanest solution is to require
> *all* protocol messages, in both directions, to have an initial length
> word.  That is, the general message format would look like
> <message type> 1 byte
> <payload length> number of following bytes (4 bytes MSB-first)
> ... message data as needed ...

Is there any message - speaking from a standpoint of a normal user and not a
source hacker WRT postgresql - where knowing the length of the response is
either unknown or is expensive (in buffering) to find out ? This would be
the only disadvantage I can immediately see.

Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: pgsql-bugsDate: 2003-04-10 12:11:35
Subject: Bug #943: Server-Encoding from EUC_TW to UTF-8 doesn't work
Previous:From: Davide RomaniniDate: 2003-04-10 09:04:37
Subject: Charset encoding and accents

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Himmet KaramanDate: 2003-04-10 12:44:40
Subject: PLEASE HELP ME about choosing entries while entering data to fields
Previous:From: Matt FitzgeraldDate: 2003-04-10 07:32:17
Subject: Re: Getting to learn libpqxx

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group