Re: Proposal: http2 wire format

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Damir Simunic <damir(dot)simunic(at)wa-research(dot)ch>, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: http2 wire format
Date: 2018-05-10 20:37:03
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ-6=GNXxmDzs=8cgvYM2sKPA4W-go9z5sBMNW2O=qX=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> There's been no visible consideration of overheads and comparison with
> existing v3 protocol. Personally I'm fine with adding some protocol overhead
> in bytes terms; low latency links have the bandwidth not to care much
> compared to payload sizes etc. On high latency links it's all about the
> round trips, not message sizes. But I want to know what those overheads are,
> and why they're there.

I think that the overhead of any new protocol (or protocol version)
ought to be a major consideration. Overhead includes, but is not
limited to, number of bytes sent over the wire. It also includes how
fast we can parse that protocol; Andres's earlier comments on this
thread abut Parse/Bind/Execute being slower than Query are on point.
If we implement a new protocol, we should measure how many QPS we can
push through it (for both prepared and unprepared queries).

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-05-10 20:41:53 Re: Why does load_external_function() return PGFunction?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-05-10 20:10:18 Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)