Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Date: 2012-01-12 03:09:15
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG+kKAP8xBb-zUGgH6uy0M-TiGtkc=up8oOCqg=U6rYhQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> +static void
>> +ProcessWalSndrMessage(XLogRecPtr walEnd, TimestampTz sendTime)
>>
>> walEnd is not used in ProcessWalSndrMessage() at all. Can't we remove it?
>> If yes, walEnd field in WalSndrMessage is also not used anywhere, so ISTM
>> we can remove it.
>
> It's there to allow extension of the message processing to be more
> complex than it currently is. Changing the protocol is much harder
> than changing a function call.
>
> I'd like to keep it since it doesn't have any negative effects.

OK. Another problem about walEnd is that WalDataMessageHeader.walEnd is not
the same kind of location as WalSndrMessage.walEnd. The former indicates the
location that WAL has already been flushed (maybe not sent yet), i.e.,
"send request
location". OTOH, the latter indicates the location that WAL has
already been sent.
Is this inconsistency intentional?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ashutosh BapatDate: 2012-01-12 04:28:55
Subject: Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2012-01-12 02:45:29
Subject: Re: order of operations for pg_restore

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-01-12 08:53:28
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-01-11 21:50:38
Subject: pgsql: Validate number of steps specified in permutation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group