Re: Logical Replication WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Petr Jelinek
Subject Re: Logical Replication WIP
Date
Msg-id 00317157-d6ce-1a2e-8897-68cef29bad50@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Logical Replication WIP  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Logical Replication WIP
List pgsql-hackers
On 13/09/16 02:55, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 13 September 2016 at 06:03, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh sure, I don't see that as big problem, the TupleData already contains
>> type of the data it sends (to distinguish between nulls and text data) so
>> that's mostly about adding some different type there and we'll also need
>> type info in the column part of the Relation message but that should be easy
>> to fence with one if for different protocol version.
>
> The missing piece seems to be negotiation.
>
> If a binary-aware client connects to a non-binary aware server, the
> non-binary-aware server needs a way to say "you requested this option
> I don't understand, go away" or "you asked for binary but I don't
> support that".
>

Not sure what you mean by negotiation. Why would that be needed? You 
know server version when you connect and when you know that you also 
know what capabilities that version of Postgres has. If you send 
unrecognized option you get corresponding error.

--   Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14244: wrong suffix for pg_size_pretty()
Next
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions