From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
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 20:21:57 |
Message-ID: | 20160912202157.bttcw4afgyc3chpe@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-09-12 21:57:39 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> 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.
I don't think we have to have it part of the protocol. But it has to be
forseen, otherwise introducing it later will end up requiring more
invasive changes than acceptable. I don't want to repeat the "libpq v3
protocol" evolution story here.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-12 20:25:19 | Re: feature request: explain "with details" option |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-12 20:07:00 | Re: feature request: explain "with details" option |