| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
| Date: | 2003-03-13 09:52:36 |
| Message-ID: | 50073.80.177.99.193.1047549156.squirrel@ssl.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
It's rumoured that Hiroshi Inoue once said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> > No, but with them we can avoid cluttering the wire protocol with
>> > fields for all this, and the JDBC required data. With 2 numeric
>> > columns (attrelid, attnum), any application/interface can query the
>> > system catalogs easily for whatever extra info they like.
>>
>> This is my feeling also. We shouldn't try to guess in the protocol
>> exactly what set of information will be wanted by a frontend; we
>> should just provide the catalog keys needed to look up whatever is
>> wanted.
>
> Does looking up by the catalog keys take no cost ?
Obviously there is cost, but doing a lookup only on demand, has got to be
cheaper in the long run than including the entire column definition in the
message whether it's wanted or not?
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-03-13 10:03:44 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-03-13 09:48:24 | Re: bug in setval? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-03-13 10:03:44 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
| Previous Message | Mike Mascari | 2003-03-13 07:33:27 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |