Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication
Date
Msg-id 11876.1284999461@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> It doesn't feel right to always accept PQputCopyData in COPY OUT mode, 
> though. IMHO there should be a new COPY IN+OUT mode.

Yeah, I was going to make the same complaint.  Breaking basic
error-checking functionality in libpq is not very acceptable.

> It should be pretty safe to add a CopyInOutResponse message to the 
> protocol without a protocol version bump. Thoughts on that?

Not if it's something that an existing application might see.  If
it can only happen in replication mode it's OK.

Personally I think this demonstrates that piggybacking replication
data transfer on the COPY protocol was a bad design to start with.
It's probably time to split them apart.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation?