| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
| Date: | 2016-09-12 19:57:39 |
| Message-ID: | b987ed34-b476-ee71-966e-b9eb6515fd71@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/09/16 21:54, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-09-12 21:47:08 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 09/09/16 06:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> The start_replication option pg_version option is not documented and
>>> not used in any later patch. We can probably do without it and just
>>> rely on the protocol version.
>>>
>>
>> That's leftover from binary type data transfer which is not part of this
>> initial approach as it adds a lot of complications to both protocol and
>> apply side. So yes can do without.
>
> FWIW, I don't think we can leave this out of the initial protocol
> design. We don't have to implement it, but it has to be part of the
> design.
>
I don't think it's a good idea to have unimplemented parts of protocol,
we have protocol version so it can be added in v2 when we have code that
is able to handle it.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-12 20:07:00 | Re: feature request: explain "with details" option |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-12 19:55:34 | Re: inappropriate use of NameGetDatum macro |