Re: Slowness of extended protocol - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Slowness of extended protocol
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY3kbrTRHxAG_FLinttRGbU+ZCX=s=VGYpWSbAU6R1j8A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Slowness of extended protocol  (Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> wrote:
> We could call this "protocol 3.1" since it doesn't break backwards
> compatibility (no incompatible server-initiated message changes, but it does
> include a feature that won't be supported by servers which only support 3.0.
> This could be a sort of "semantic versioning" for the protocol - optional
> new client-initiated features are a minor version bump, others are a major
> version bump...

I wouldn't try to do that; we've done nothing similar in past
instances where we've added new protocol or sub-protocol messages,
which has happened at least for COPY BOTH mode within recent memory.
See d3d414696f39e2b57072fab3dd4fa11e465be4ed.

> This new client-initiated message would be similar to query, except that it
> would include the parameter and result-related fields from Bind. The
> responses would be identical to the responses for the Query message.
>
> Does this make sense?

I think so.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_ctl promote wait
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: No longer possible to query catalogs for index capabilities?