Re: PQ versions request message

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name>
Cc: Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQ versions request message
Date: 2005-09-08 13:17:59
Message-ID: 6002.1126185479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name> writes:
> Like I asked above, why does it have to be done in two connection
> cycles? I'm assume by connection cycle you are referring to reopening
> the socket, or...?

You're right, it wouldn't be necessary to tear down the socket --- but
it *would* be necessary to have two network round trips. And the point
remains that in most scenarios the client and server will be of similar
vintages and so wish to speak the same protocol version anyway, so most
of the time the extra probe would be useless. I think you're trying to
optimize the uncommon case at the expense of the common case.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2005-09-08 13:45:10 Re: uuid type for postgres
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2005-09-08 13:15:32 Re: Attention PL authors: want to be listed in template table?