From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog |
Date: | 2012-02-07 16:29:42 |
Message-ID: | 4F315176.7010001@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.02.2012 16:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> (The integer vs float TimestampTz issue is a kind of portability
> problem, but we've already bought into the assumption that sender and
> receiver must be built with the same choice, no?)
Hmm, true. In hindsight, I think that was a bad choice, but it's a bit
late to change that. pg_basebackup doesn't otherwise care about the
integer/float timestamps, but it does send a timestamp back to the
server. You won't be able to actually start up the database if the
config options don't match, but I think it would be good if
pg_basebackup still worked across platforms and versions. For example,
you might have a central backup server that calls pg_basebackup on
several database servers, running on different platforms.
In 9.0, the only field in the protocol that depends on timestamp format
is WalDataMessageHeader->sendTime. That goes from server to client, and
pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog don't care about that. In 9.1 we introduced
StandbyReplyMessage->sendTime, which is sent from client to server, but
looking at the code it looks like the server doesn't use it for
anything. In 9.2, we added WalSndrMessage->sendTime, which is used by a
standby server to calculate how far behind the standby is.
I'm tempted to just change all of those TimestampTz fields to something
that's independent of integer/float timestamp setting, in 9.2. At a
quick glance, it seems that it wouldn't break anything.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-07 16:29:50 | Re: Review of: explain / allow collecting row counts without timing info |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-07 15:59:01 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |