Re: Sharing more infrastructure between walsenders and regular backends (was Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sharing more infrastructure between walsenders and regular backends (was Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication)
Date: 2012-10-04 16:00:00
Message-ID: 28424.1349366400@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> writes:
> So I propose the attached patch. I made small changes to postgres.c to
> make it call exec_replication_command() instead of exec_simple_query(),
> and reject extend query protocol, in a WAL sender process. A lot of code
> related to handling the main command loop and signals is removed from
> walsender.c.

Why do we need the forbidden_in_wal_sender stuff? If we're going in
this direction, I suggest there is little reason to restrict what the
replication client can do. This seems to be both ugly and a drag on
the performance of normal backends.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2012-10-04 16:19:36 Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-10-04 15:43:12 Re: bison location reporting for potentially-empty list productions