Re: Stability of queryid in minor versions

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stability of queryid in minor versions
Date: 2024-04-15 01:11:44
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=D1FeNU2y+rg=+82w9=38m5LdDOAAvyYtxnnwRge9grQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 9:01 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 11:47, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > Technically we don't promise that WAL records won't change in minor
> > versions. In fact, the docs specifically state that the format of any
> > WAL record might change, and that users should upgrade standbys first
> > on general principle (though I imagine few do). We try hard to avoid
> > changing the format of WAL records in point releases, of course, but
> > strictly speaking there is no guarantee. This situation seems similar
> > (though much lower stakes) to me. Query normalization isn't perfect --
> > there's a trade-off.

> Where does WAL fit into this? And why would a WAL format change the
> computed value?

It doesn't. I just compared the two situations, which seem analogous.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-04-15 01:15:49 Re: Fix out-of-bounds in the function GetCommandTagName
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-04-15 01:09:02 Re: Fix out-of-bounds in the function GetCommandTagName