Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog
Date: 2012-05-11 15:44:00
Message-ID: 5579.1336751040@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> How common *is* it to have a build that doesn't have integer timestamps
> these days? Does any of the binary builds do that at all, for example? If
> it's uncommon enough, I think we should just go with the easy way out...

+1 for just rejecting a mismatch.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-05-11 15:44:49 Re: Draft release notes complete
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-05-11 15:42:21 Re: Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample