Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Dobes Vandermeer |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views) |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CADbG_jY_HOfn4LJ-hGxqrc7ww6DxHC93Ndqhp3CKCs27-P2R0Q@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views) (Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: HTTP Frontend? (and a brief thought on materialized views)
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Dobes Vandermeer <dobesv@gmail.com> wrote:No. I do not think so. I think a reasonable solution (part of what MS
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> More technical concerns:
>> > * Protocol compression -- but a bit of sand in the gears is *which*
>> > compression -- for database workloads, the performance of zlib can be
>> > a meaningful bottleneck.
>
> I think if performance is the issue, people should use the native protocol.
is actually proposing to the IETF) is to make compression optional, or
have clients support an LZ77 family format like Snappy. I get the
impression that SPDY is waffling a little on this fact, it mandates
compression, and definitely zlib, but is less heavy handed about
pushing, say Snappy. Although I can understand why a
Google-originated technology probably doesn't want to push another
Google-originated implementation so hard, it would have been
convenient for me for Snappy to have become a more common format.Virtual hosts. Same port.
> Isn't the URL good enough (/databases/<dbname>) or are you talking about
> having some some of "virtual host" setup where you have multiple sets of
> databases available on the same port?
In that case, the frontend would not be tied to a specific PostgreSQL server, then? I think initially this might complicate things a bit, and you could solve it by putting an HTTP proxy in front to do the virtual hosts for you.
>> > * A standard frame extension format. For example, last I checkedIt'd be nice if it wasn't
>> > Postgres-XC, it required snapshot information to be passed, and it'd
>> > be nice that instead of having to hack the protocol that they could
>> > attach an X-Snapshot-Info header, or whatever. This could also be a
>> > nice way to pass out-of-band hint information of all sorts.
>
>
> I am sorry to admit I don't understand the terms "frame extension format" or
> "Postgres-XC" in this paragraph ... help?
necessary to do that and they had a much easier path to multiplex
additional information into the connection.
Ah, I get it - you want a way to add some extra information to the protocol in a backwards compatible way. HTTP (and SPDY) provides a "standard" way to do that. Makes sense.
For my own purposes, I'm intensely interest in lacing the connection with:
* EXPLAIN ANALYZE
* Partition IDs
* Read-only vs. Write workload
I'll make a note of these and hash out the details a bit more once there's something working to add them to.
> As for SPDY I can see how it may be helpful but as it is basically a
> different way to send HTTP requestsI think SPDY or like-protocols [...] give a crisp treatment to interactive, stateful workloads involving
back-and-forth between client and server with multiplexing, fixing
some problems with the hacks in HTTP-land from before.
It sounds like at some level you're really talking about replacing the built-in protocol with SPDY because SPDY is possibly a better baseline than updating the existing protocol. That's an interesting idea, I think this project could evolve in that direction if there's demand for it.
pgsql-hackers by date: