| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |