Re: Slowness of extended protocol

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Shay Rojansky
Тема Re: Slowness of extended protocol
Дата
Msg-id CADT4RqDGtMEVG70A6pw7ma7-Bkq8cfZucXHG4P4vqF+95Vgu_A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Slowness of extended protocol  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Just a note from me - I also agree this thread evolved (or rather devolved) in a rather unproductive and strange way.

One important note that came out, though, is that adding a new client message does have a backwards compatibility issue - intelligent proxies such as pgbouncer/pgpool will probably break once they see an unknown client message. Even if they don't, they may miss potentially important information being transmitted to the server. Whether this is a deal-breaker for introducing new messages is another matter (I personally don't think so).

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2016-08-23 11:42:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this could possibly be done, but it seems a lot better to me
> to just bite the bullet and add a new protocol message.  That was
> proposed by Tom Lane on July 31st and I think it's still by far the
> best and easiest idea proposed, except I think we could introduce it
> without waiting for a bigger rework of the protocol if we design the
> libpq APIs carefully.  Most of the rest of this thread seems to have
> devolved into an argument about whether this is really necessary,
> which IMHO is a pretty silly argument, instead of focusing on how it
> might be done, which I think would be a much more productive
> conversation.

I agree about the odd course of the further discussion, especially the
tone was rather odd.  But I do think it's valuable to think about a path
that fixes the issue without requiring version-dependant adaptions in
all client drivers.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()