| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
| Date: | 2014-10-24 19:30:52 |
| Message-ID: | 544AA8EC.5030105@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/24/14, 2:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On the serialization structure itself, should we be worried about a mismatch between available GUCs on the sender vs the receiver? Presumably if the sender outputs a GUC that the receiver doesn't know about we'll get an error, but what if the sender didn't include something? Maybe not an issue today, but could this cause problems down the road if we wanted to use the serialized data some other way? But maybe I'm just being paranoid. :)
I just realized there's a bigger problem there; this isn't portable against any changes to any of the binary elements.
So I guess it's really a question of would we ever want this to function (as-is) cross-version.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-24 20:07:20 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-10-24 19:23:12 | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |