Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
От | Bruce Badger |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1050012887.1063.12.camel@alice обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 04:15, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, as far as network roundtrips go, it's always been true that you > don't really have to wait for the backend's response before sending the > next command. The proposal to decouple SYNC from individual commands > should make this easier: you fire off N commands "blind", then a SYNC. > When the sync response comes back, it's done. If any of the commands > fail, all else up to the SYNC will be ignored, so you don't have the > problem of commands executing against an unexpected state. Is SYNC going to be a new kind of message? Is the SYNC response yet another? 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) 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? Thanks,Bruce
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: