Ok, committed all the WAL format changes now.
On 19.06.2012 18:57, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Should we keep the old representation in the replication protocol messages?
>> That would make it simpler to write a client that works with different
>> server versions (like pg_receivexlog). Or, while we're at it, perhaps we
>> should mandate network-byte order for all the integer and XLogRecPtr fields
>> in the replication protocol. That would make it easier to write a client
>> that works across different architectures, in>= 9.3. The contents of the
>> WAL would of course be architecture-dependent, but it would be nice if
>> pg_receivexlog and similar tools could nevertheless be
>> architecture-independent.
>
> I share Andres' question about how we're doing this already. I think
> if we're going to break this, I'd rather do it in 9.3 than 5 years
> from now. At this point it's just a minor annoyance, but it'll
> probably get worse as people write more tools that understand WAL.
I didn't touch the replication protocol yet, but I think we should do it
some time during 9.3.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
