From: | Grant Finnemore <grantf(at)guruhut(dot)co(dot)za> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: protocol change in 7.4 |
Date: | 2002-11-05 05:28:54 |
Message-ID: | 3DC75716.50102@guruhut.co.za |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Questions have arisen during discussions about errors relating
to how to support error codes without changing the FE/BE
protocols. (see TODO.detail/error)
Now that the protocol is up for revision, how about supporting
sql state strings, error codes, and other information directly in
the protocol.
Regards,
Grant
Neil Conway wrote:
> There has been some previous discussion of changing the FE/BE protocol
> in 7.4, in order to fix several problems. I think this is worth doing:
> if we can resolve all these issues in a single release, it will lessen
> the upgrade difficulties for users.
>
> I'm aware of the following problems that need a protocol change to fix
> them:
>
> (1) Add an optional textual message to NOTIFY
>
> (2) Remove the hard-coded limits on database and user names
> (SM_USER, SM_DATABASE), replace them with variable-length
> fields.
>
> (3) Remove some legacy elements in the startup packet
> ('unused' can go -- perhaps 'tty' as well). I think the
> 'length' field of the password packet is also not used,
> but I'll need to double-check that.
>
> (4) Fix the COPY protocol (Tom?)
>
> (5) Fix the Fastpath protocol (Tom?)
>
> (6) Protocol-level support for prepared queries, in order to
> bypass the parser (and maybe be more compatible with the
> implementation of prepared queries in other databases).
>
> (7) Include the current transaction status, since it's
> difficult for the client app to determine it for certain
> (Tom/Bruce?)
>
> If I've missed anything or if there is something you think we should
> add, please let me know.
>
> I can implement (1), (2), (3), and possibly (7), if someone can tell
> me exactly what is required (my memory of the discussion relating to
> this is fuzzy). The rest is up for grabs.
>
> Finally, how should we manage the transition? I wasn't around for the
> earlier protocol changes, so I'd appreciate any input on steps we can
> take to improve backward-compatibility.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-11-05 05:43:37 | Re: protocol change in 7.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-05 04:46:10 | Re: protocol change in 7.4 |