On K, 2005-06-29 at 10:33 +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > Hi guys, > > > I lean with you and Tom. While running it over the same libpq protocol > > would be helpful in some ways, it would have a lot of drawbacks and > > would really change the function of libpq. I think a separate debugging > > protocol is in order. > > Just putting on my network hat for a moment... Would an approach be to come > up with a generic encapsulation protocol, similar in principle to PPP, in > which we could run any protocols we wanted?
That's what I also thought, but was too busy/lazy to write up :) > If we had something like a PGSQL Encapsulation Protocol (PGEP) used to > transfer all data between a PostgreSQL client/server, then we can use this > to tunnel libpq requests as they are at the moment through to the other > side. also, additional channels un PGEP could be initiated in both directions, and things like NOTIFY could be put in a different channel. > However, it would also mean that people could add any other protocols > as they see fit for debugging, statistics and all sorts of things that > people have yet to think of. One example would be connection keepalive protocol , run over its own channel in PGEP and used in case TCP link has a tendency to fail. This should be run from server to client during idle periods, just to see if client is still there. > Obviously this would require a client/server interface change so it's not to > be taken lightly, but I thought I'd mention it since people have mentioned > the possibility of changes to the FE/BE protocol. As protocol is negotiated at startup anyway, this is a change that could be done in a backward compatible manner . -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org