Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay
Date: 2010-01-18 15:20:36
Message-ID: 4B547C44.2060401@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Do we need a new record type for that, is there a handy record type to
>>> bounce from?
>
>> After starting streaming, slices of WAL are sent as CopyData messages.
>> The CopyData payload begins with an XLogRecPtr, followed by the WAL
>> data. That payload format needs to be extended with a 'message type'
>> field and a new message type for the timestamps need to be added.
>
> Whether or not anyone bothers with the timestamp message, I think adding
> a message type header is a Must Fix item. A protocol with no provision
> for extension is certainly going to bite us in the rear before long.

Agreed a message type header is a good idea, although we don't expect
streaming replication and the protocol to work across different major
versions anyway.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-18 15:24:18 Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-01-18 15:19:36 Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches