Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog
Date: 2012-05-10 14:43:37
Message-ID: CABUevEw=CDieE5eFG7PJG8ME4XLgvRmR8gLOO6PvG6O9iQHo6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that.
>
> Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really
> should resolve this before we wrap beta, no?

Had a chat with Heikki about this, and we came to the conslusion that
we don't actually have to fix it befor ebeta. Because pg_basebackup is
going to have to consider 9.1 servers anyway, and we can just treat
9.2beta1 as being a 9.1 from this perspective.

We still have to fix it, but it' snot as urgent :-)

FWIW, the main plan we're onto is still to add the GUCs on new
connections to walsender, so we have something to work with...

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-05-10 14:44:17 Re: Draft release notes complete
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2012-05-10 14:43:08 Re: Can pg_trgm handle non-alphanumeric characters?