Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

> 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.

If we can remove the exec() in 6.4, that will make backend startup even
quicker.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)