Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN

From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, haoran zhang <andrewzhr9911(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN
Date: 2024-10-29 16:03:04
Message-ID: af102f21-0251-4d5f-b8d3-f0a0d0bebdf2@comcast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Peter,

On 10/28/24 12:58 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I'd suggest adding a new message type for this, so that it works the
> same with simple and extended query. Or if you just want to wait without
> issuing any query.

I agree it is a good idea to have a feature like this.

However, I agree with Heikki that we should have a separate message type
for this. There are a lot of protocol implementations outside of
PostgreSQL/Core, and they would have to adjust based on the version
number of Core itself if we add fields to existing message types.

Maybe there should be an "Extension ('x') (F)" message that only has a
fixed "header", and the rest of the fields are based on the "header"
limited by the message length field - sort of free-form. The result is
returned as a "DataRow ('D') (B)" list.

Thanks for working on this !

Best regards,
Jesper

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jesper Pedersen 2024-10-29 16:22:58 Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2024-10-29 16:01:24 Scrollable cursors that use an nbtree index scan are subtly broken with array keys (bug affecting 17+)