Re: Slowness of extended protocol

On 2016-08-23 11:42:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think this could possibly be done, but it seems a lot better to me
> to just bite the bullet and add a new protocol message.  That was
> proposed by Tom Lane on July 31st and I think it's still by far the
> best and easiest idea proposed, except I think we could introduce it
> without waiting for a bigger rework of the protocol if we design the
> libpq APIs carefully.  Most of the rest of this thread seems to have
> devolved into an argument about whether this is really necessary,
> which IMHO is a pretty silly argument, instead of focusing on how it
> might be done, which I think would be a much more productive
> conversation.

I agree about the odd course of the further discussion, especially the
tone was rather odd.  But I do think it's valuable to think about a path
that fixes the issue without requiring version-dependant adaptions in
all client drivers.

Greetings,

Andres Freund