Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes

> That was something I asked about a few days ago, and didn't get any
> responses suggesting that anyone thought it was likely to happen.
>
> We would need wholesale changes everywhere in the protocol to support
> concurrent queries: answers and errors coming back would have to be
> tagged to indicate which query they apply to.  The lack of a tag in
> the cancel message isn't the controlling factor.
>
> In the current system architecture, much the easiest way to execute
> concurrent queries is to open up more than one connection.  There's
> nothing that says a frontend process can't fire up multiple backend
> processes.  I think this is probably sufficient, because I don't
> foresee such a thing becoming really popular anyway.

If we can remove the exec() in 6.4, that will make backend startup even
quicker.


--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)