| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL format |
| Date: | 2009-12-08 07:24:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0912072324g57f79417o4ebb56a7f5d5aaa7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If this was earlier in the release cycle, I'd feel happier.
>
> 2.5 months before beta is the wrong time to re-design the crash recovery
> data format, especially because its only "a bit awkward". We're bound to
> break something unforeseen and not have time to fix it. If you were
> telling me "impossible", I'd be all ears.
To avoid the harmful effect on the existing feature, how about
introducing new function which reads WAL records in byte level
for Streaming Replication? ISTM that making one function
ReadRecord cover several cases (a crash recovery and replication)
would increase complexity.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Weimer | 2009-12-08 07:28:36 | Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-08 06:55:09 | Re: A sniffer for the buffer |