Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Date: 2012-01-12 03:09:15
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG+kKAP8xBb-zUGgH6uy0M-TiGtkc=up8oOCqg=U6rYhQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> +static void
>> +ProcessWalSndrMessage(XLogRecPtr walEnd, TimestampTz sendTime)
>>
>> walEnd is not used in ProcessWalSndrMessage() at all. Can't we remove it?
>> If yes, walEnd field in WalSndrMessage is also not used anywhere, so ISTM
>> we can remove it.
>
> It's there to allow extension of the message processing to be more
> complex than it currently is. Changing the protocol is much harder
> than changing a function call.
>
> I'd like to keep it since it doesn't have any negative effects.

OK. Another problem about walEnd is that WalDataMessageHeader.walEnd is not
the same kind of location as WalSndrMessage.walEnd. The former indicates the
location that WAL has already been flushed (maybe not sent yet), i.e.,
"send request
location". OTOH, the latter indicates the location that WAL has
already been sent.
Is this inconsistency intentional?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-01-12 08:53:28 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-01-11 21:50:38 pgsql: Validate number of steps specified in permutation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2012-01-12 04:28:55 Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-01-12 02:45:29 Re: order of operations for pg_restore