| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
| Date: | 2025-06-19 14:41:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZrnMvdPTZ90p-a_u+Om9A=ePT=gM_vqFmQBVBtmkWQbw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, June 19, 2025, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > FWIW my reading of the protocol docs is that BackendKeyData is
> > optional.
>
> If majority of developers think so, do we want to update the protocol
> docs? For me the docs is not clear enough.
>
At this point why does it matter what the docs says? You know what exists
in reality and you can either change or not.
That said, the documentation makes it clear that absent an error the server
shall send:
2 or more (some) ParameterStatus messages
Followed by
1 BackendKeyData message
Followed by
1 ReadyForQuery message
So the protocol is violated if the BackendKeyData is absent. I don’t see
why we should change that since we adhere to it and it’s our protocol; but
also its absence is non-fatal to the typical operation of the server…
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-06-19 14:47:10 | Re: Add CASEFOLD() function. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-06-19 14:36:20 | Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure |