| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: protocol-level wait-for-LSN |
| Date: | 2024-11-04 09:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | f7af9c63-41c3-446f-8488-48535326224c@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 30.10.24 10:03, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 16:51, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> + snprintf(xloc, sizeof(xloc), "%X/%X",
> LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(logptr))
> + pq_sendstring(&buf, xloc);
>
> nit: I feel that sending the LSN as a string seems unnecessarily
> wasteful of bytes. I'd rather send it as its binary representation.
My thinking here was: This protocol is also used by things that are not
PostgreSQL. They might have other representations for "position to wait
for". I don't know, but it's something to think about.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-11-04 09:49:04 | Re: Clear padding in PgStat_HashKey keys |
| Previous Message | Anthonin Bonnefoy | 2024-11-04 09:42:36 | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |