| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication, loose ends |
| Date: | 2010-01-15 17:03:18 |
| Message-ID: | 410.1263574998@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:
>> I'm actually fairly uncomfortable with the notion that something buried
>> deep within the src/backend tree is going to reach over and cause libpq
>> to get built. Maybe the real answer is that you put walreceiver in the
>> wrong place, and it ought to be under src/bin/.
> That feels even more wrong to me. Walreceiver is a postmaster
> subprocess, tightly integrated with the rest of the backend.
[ shrug... ] pg_dump, to take one example, is considerably more
"tightly integrated" with the backend than walreceiver is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-15 17:07:52 | Re: Streaming replication, loose ends |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-15 17:00:32 | Re: Streaming replication, loose ends |