|From:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|To:||'Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant' <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Jing Wang <jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||RE: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
From: Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant [mailto:alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org]
> Testing protocol version 2 is difficult! Almost every single test fails
> because of error messages being reported differently; and streaming
> replication (incl. pg_basebackup) doesn't work at all because it's not
> possible to establish replication connections. Manual inspection shows
> it behaves correctly.
Yeah, the code path for protocol v2 is sometimes annoying. I wish v2 support will be dropped soon. I know there was a discussion on it, but I didn't track the conclusion.
> Remaining patchset attached (per my count it's v13 of your patchset.
I'm afraid those weren't attached.
> think we should merge one half of it with each of the other two patches
> where the changes are introduced (0003 and 0004). I'm not convinced
> that we need 0004-0006 to be separate commits.
It was hard to review those separate patches, so I think it's better to merge those. OTOH, I can understand Haribabu-san's idea that the community may not accept the latter patches, e.g. accept only 0001-0005.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant||2019-09-11 00:17:31||Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority|
|Previous Message||Julien Rouhaud||2019-09-10 23:27:06||Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)|