Re: walsender & parallelism

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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