Re: PQ versions request message - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PQ versions request message
Date
Msg-id 6002.1126185479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PQ versions request message  (James William Pye <pgsql@jwp.name>)
Responses Re: PQ versions request message
List pgsql-hackers
James William Pye <pgsql@jwp.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From:
Date:
Subject: Re: Rendezvous/Bonjour broken in 8.1 beta
Next
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane"
Date:
Subject: Re: uuid type for postgres