Re: [INTERFACES] First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for comments

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jason M(dot) Felice" <jfelice(at)cronosys(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for comments
Date: 2003-04-16 15:05:49
Message-ID: 18105.1050505549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

"Jason M. Felice" <jfelice(at)cronosys(dot)com> writes:
> 46.2.3 - Is bind required when the portal has no parameters? It would be
> useful to be able to avoid the bind message in this case.

Yes, because you don't have a portal till you bind. I don't see that
avoiding the message is an issue --- it's only a few bytes, and you
don't need to wait for a round-trip time. In practice you're going to
bundle it with either the Parse or the Execute, I would think.

> 46.2.9 - SSL - Is there any way to detect the start of an SSL session sooner?

I am not personally willing to take any responsibility for altering the
SSL startup protocol. If someone else wants to do it, fine. I'm not
real sure how you are going to "stuff bytes back into a buffer" though;
at the very least, that's going to require unseemly intimacy with the
SSL library. Also, it's not obvious to me that the first few bytes of
TLS' ClientHello can reliably be distinguished from our StartupMessage
... especially given that both protocols put version numbers, lengths,
and other not-very-constant data here.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-16 15:22:22 Re: pg_clog woes with 7.3.2 - Episode 2
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-04-16 14:25:43 Re: cross-db queries (was Are we losing momentum?)

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Badger 2003-04-16 21:50:21 Re: [INTERFACES] First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-16 14:23:09 Re: First draft of new FE/BE protocol spec posted for comments