From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
Date: | 2009-12-14 19:11:45 |
Message-ID: | 12218.1260817905@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I have a problem with that. What's the backend doing with libpq?
>> It's not receiving this data, it's sending it.
> walreceiver is a postmaster subprocess too.
Hm. Perhaps it should be a loadable plugin and not hard-linked into the
backend? Compare dblink.
The main concern I have with hard-linking libpq is that it has a lot of
symbol conflicts with the backend --- and at least the ones from
src/port/ aren't easily removed. I foresee problems that will be very
difficult to fix on platforms where we can't filter the set of link
symbols exposed by libpq. Linking a thread-enabled libpq into the
backend could also create problems on some platforms --- it would likely
cause a thread-capable libc to get linked, which is not what we want.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-14 19:14:06 | Re: Hot Standby, release candidate? |
Previous Message | Scott Bailey | 2009-12-14 19:10:14 | Re: Range types |