From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Badger <bruce_badger(at)badgerse(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Date: | 2003-04-10 23:29:30 |
Message-ID: | 7705.1050017370@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Bruce Badger <bruce_badger(at)badgerse(dot)com> writes:
> Is SYNC going to be a new kind of message? Is the SYNC response yet
> another?
Yes; no. SYNC response already exists: it's ReadyForQuery (Z).
> Either way, could this be used as a keep-alive for long-lived
> connections? (some users of the current Smalltalk drivers report that
> long lived connections over the Internet sometimes just die)
If you're worried about that, Q with an empty query already suffices,
though SYNC will work too.
I'd be inclined to think that such breakage isn't our problem though;
anyone suffering from it needs to fix their firewall timeouts ...
> Also, with the new protocol, will the number of affected rows be
> returned in a way that does not require parsing to fish it out?
I'm not planning to change the contents of messages more than I have to.
What's so hard about parsing "UPDATE nnn" ?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-04-11 01:15:57 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-10 22:50:02 | Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-04-11 01:15:57 | Re: Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-10 22:50:02 | Speed of SSL connections; cost of renegotiation |