Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol - Mailing list pgsql-interfaces

From Peter Galbavy
Subject Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Date
Msg-id 003f01c2ff40$9f1a0e70$7c28a8c0@cblan.mblox.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to More thoughts about FE/BE protocol  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-interfaces
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm coming around to the idea that the cleanest solution is to require
> *all* protocol messages, in both directions, to have an initial length
> word.  That is, the general message format would look like
> <message type> 1 byte
> <payload length> number of following bytes (4 bytes MSB-first)
> ... message data as needed ...

Is there any message - speaking from a standpoint of a normal user and not a
source hacker WRT postgresql - where knowing the length of the response is
either unknown or is expensive (in buffering) to find out ? This would be
the only disadvantage I can immediately see.

Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick.

Peter



pgsql-interfaces by date:

Previous
From: "Matt Fitzgerald"
Date:
Subject: Re: Getting to learn libpqxx
Next
From: Himmet Karaman
Date:
Subject: PLEASE HELP ME URGENT about choosing only the ones that i want while entering the data to postgresql with pgaccess on linux or windows or pgadmin II