On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs
>>>> that we
>>>> pass around. It's quite bogus anyway to explain the messages the way we
>>>> do currently, as they are actually dependent on the underlying
>>>> architecture's endianess and padding. I think we should refactor the
>>>> protocol to not transmit raw structs, but use pq_sentint and friends to
>>>> construct the messages. This was discussed earlier (see
>>>> I think there's consensus that 9.3 would be a good time to do that
>>>> as we changed the XLogRecPtr format anyway.
>>> This is what I came up with. The replication protocol is now
>>> architecture-independent. The WAL format itself is still
>>> architecture-independent, of course, but this is useful if you want
>>> to e.g
>>> use pg_receivexlog to back up a server that runs on a different
>>> I chose the int64 format to transmit timestamps, even when compiled with
>>> Please review if you have the time..
>> Thanks for the patch!
>> When I ran pg_receivexlog, I encountered the following error.
> Yeah, clearly I didn't test this near enough...
> I fixed the bugs you bumped into, new version attached.
Committed this now, after fixing a few more bugs that came up during
testing. Next, I'll take a look at the patch you sent for adding
timeouts to pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2012-11-07 17:24:23|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-11-07 17:19:14|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: magnus||Date: 2012-11-07 17:47:03|
|Subject: BUG #7640: Testing bug reporting form|
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2012-11-07 17:21:03|
|Subject: Re: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "tableName_pk"|