From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: walsender & parallelism |
Date: | 2017-04-24 05:42:59 |
Message-ID: | 5814B653-B06F-45ED-8820-8258F6699107@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On April 23, 2017 10:31:18 PM PDT, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>On 24/04/17 04:31, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>So actually maybe running regression tests through it might be
>reasonable approach if we add new make target for it.
That sounds like a good plan.
>Note that the first patch is huge. That's because I needed to add
>alternative output for largeobject test because it uses fastpath
>function calls which are not allowed over replication protocol.
There's no need for that restriction, is there? At least for db walsenders...
>As part of this I realized that the parser fallback that I wrote
>originally for handling SQL in walsender is not robust enough as the
>lexer would fail on some valid SQL statements. So there is also second
>patch that does this using different approach which allows any SQL
>statement.
Haven't looked at the new thing yet, but I'm not particularly surprised... Wonder of there's a good way to fully integrate both grammars, without exploding keywords.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-24 05:55:05 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-24 05:31:18 | Re: walsender & parallelism |