Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
> The attached patch adds a message type header into the payload in
> CopyData message sent from walsender to walreceiver, to make the
> replication protocol more extensible.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-02-03 09:52:11|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict
|Previous:||From: Rafael Martinez||Date: 2010-02-03 09:46:13|
|Subject: Re: PITR - Bug or feature?|