| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-09-20 16:17:41 |
| Message-ID: | 11876.1284999461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode,
> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.
Yeah, I was going to make the same complaint. Breaking basic
error-checking functionality in libpq is not very acceptable.
> It should be pretty safe to add a CopyInOutResponse message to the
> protocol without a protocol version bump. Thoughts on that?
Not if it's something that an existing application might see. If
it can only happen in replication mode it's OK.
Personally I think this demonstrates that piggybacking replication
data transfer on the COPY protocol was a bad design to start with.
It's probably time to split them apart.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-09-20 16:20:22 | Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-20 16:09:40 | Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation? |