From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Logical decoding on standby |
Date: | 2017-03-30 20:49:58 |
Message-ID: | 20170330204958.d3x7t5wlisgntyrs@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-03-30 19:40:08 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 30 March 2017 at 18:16, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> >> /*
> >> * Each page of XLOG file has a header like this:
> >> */
> >> -#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD097 /* can be used as WAL version indicator */
> >> +#define XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC 0xD100 /* can be used as WAL version indicator */
> >
> > We normally only advance this by one, it's not tied to the poistgres version.
>
> That was my addition. I rounded it up cos this is release 10. No biggie.
We'll probably upgrade that more than once again this release...
> (Poistgres? Is that the Manhattan spelling?)
Tiredness spelling ;)
> We've been redesigning the mechanisms for 2 years now, so it seems
> unlikely that further redesign can be required.
I don't think that's true *at all* - the mechanism previously
fundamentally different.
The whole topic has largely seen activity shortly before the code
freeze, both last time round and now. I don't think it's surprising
that it thus doesn't end up being ready.
> If it is required,
> this patch is fairly low touch and change is possible later,
> incremental development etc. As regards overhead, this adds a small
> amount of time to a background process executed every 10 secs,
> generates no new WAL records.
>
> So I don't see any reason not to commit this feature, after the minor
> corrections.
It doesn't have any benefit on its own, the locking model doesn't seem
fully there. I don't see much reason to get this in before the release.
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2017-03-30 21:22:27 | Re: WIP: Covering + unique indexes. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-03-30 20:45:55 | REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: Postgres Permissions Article) |