Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Do we need a new record type for that, is there a handy record type to
>>> bounce from?
> 
>> After starting streaming, slices of WAL are sent as CopyData messages.
>> The CopyData payload begins with an XLogRecPtr, followed by the WAL
>> data. That payload format needs to be extended with a 'message type'
>> field and a new message type for the timestamps need to be added.
> 
> Whether or not anyone bothers with the timestamp message, I think adding
> a message type header is a Must Fix item.  A protocol with no provision
> for extension is certainly going to bite us in the rear before long.

Agreed a message type header is a good idea, although we don't expect
streaming replication and the protocol to work across different major
versions anyway.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay at 2010-01-18 14:34:27 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay at 2010-01-18 15:24:18 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-01-18 15:24:18
	Subject: Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay
Previous:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2010-01-18 15:19:36
	Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches