Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay
Date: 2010-01-18 15:24:18
Message-ID: 5960.1263828258@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whether or not anyone bothers with the timestamp message, I think adding
>> a message type header is a Must Fix item. A protocol with no provision
>> for extension is certainly going to bite us in the rear before long.

> Agreed a message type header is a good idea, although we don't expect
> streaming replication and the protocol to work across different major
> versions anyway.

Speaking of which, just where is the defense that makes sure that
walsender and walreceiver are compatible? We should be checking not
only version, but all of the configuration variables that are embedded
in pg_control.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-01-18 15:33:56 Re: Streaming Replication on win32
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-01-18 15:20:36 Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay