sabdb protocol V2
g.j.molenaar at uva.nl
Fri Mar 8 16:53:22 CET 2013
On 08/03/13 16:49, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hi Gijs,
> On 08-03-2013 16:39:05 +0100, Gijs Molenaar wrote:
>> Hi MonetDB people,
>> I've noticed that there has been a new version (2) of the sabdb protocol
>> introduced. The sabdb protocol is used to send administrative command to
>> a monetdb server.
>> This breaks the Python API, which I just fixed, I'll commit it later.
>> But I've noticed some strange behavior, it looks like monetdb closes the
>> connection in some cases, not all. Specifically when I issue a status
>> command the connection is closed, but in other cases it is not.
>> I've fixed it now by reconnecting before every command, but I just
>> wanted to verify if that is the right way to go.
> Can you be a bit more specific? In general you should reconnect for
> each new command, although you technically should be able to send a
> bunch of starts/stops over a single connection. This hasn't changed.
Yes, I can issue some start and restarts over the same connection, but
as soon as I issue a 'status' command the connection is closed by the
monetdb server. I've solved this by reconnecting before every command
which seems to be the proper solution given your answer.
> sabdb indeed is the format to serialise all state information about a
> database. See the comments in the C-sources on what changed (as well as
> commit message), and what you should change as well.
i've replicated the java client behavior.
> I didn't know the python api had support for it too, or I'd looked at it
> at the time it was introduced. Sorry.
no problem, we where not using this anyway yet, since I'm still not
finished with implementing the support for unix file sockets...
I got a bit stuck with it and forgot about it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the developers-list