| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |
| Date: | 2024-01-11 16:20:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQQ8mXAfN6Rnc+Ac9nZLseztgk-0qk=mvg+Fy3Q0zBxhmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 23:53, Jelte Fennema-Nio <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> Honestly, I care more about patch 0010 than patch 0008. Patch 0008
> simply seemed like the easiest way to demonstrate the ParameterSet
> message.
So to be clear, if you consider 0008 the most controversial/risky part
of this patchset (which it sounds like that's the case). I'd be fine
with removing that for now. IMHO the first 7 patches would be very
useful on their own, because they unblock any other patches that want
to introduce protocol changes (examples of those are 0008 and 0010).
Do you think that is a good idea? I could fairly easily modify the
tests in 0009 to remove any things related to 0008.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-01-11 16:26:56 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-01-11 15:41:47 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |