Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> writes: > If we are going to change the wire protocol, it would be nice if parse > complete message includes an identification of the previous parse > message. Same thing can be said to bind complete, command complete and > close complete.
> The identification could be an either sequence number assigned to the > parse message or just the statement name (IMO sequence numbers are > better since duplicated statement names could be possible). > Background: in extended protocol, a reply to a message sent to server > could be asynchronously returned. Uh, what? There's no asynchrony in the protocol --- messages are processed and answered strictly in order. I grant that certain types of application structures might find it convenient if we numbered the responses, but it seems like mostly a waste of network bandwidth. The application should be able to count the results for itself. In any case, if the server simply numbers the responses, how does that help? In the example you show, the ParseComplete messages might come back with numbers 42 and 43 --- exactly how does that help the app associate them with the commands it sent? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers