On 2014-09-29 13:38:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > Lastly, I will say that I feel it'd be good to support bi-directional > > communication as I think it'll be needed eventually, but I'm not sure > > that has to happen now. > > I agree we need bidirectional communication; I just don't agree that > the other direction should use the libpq format. The data going from > the worker to the process that launched it is stuff like errors and > tuples, for which we already have a wire format. The data going in > the other direction is going to be things like plan trees to be > executed, for which we don't. But if we can defer the issue, so much > the better. Things will become clearer as we get closer to being > done.
I think that might be true for your usecase, but not for others. It's perfectly conceivable that one might want to ship tuples to a couple bgworkers using the COPY protocol or such. I don't think it needs to be fully implemented, but I think we should design it a way that it's unlikely to require larger changes to the added code from here to add it. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
