On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs
>>>> that we
>>>> pass around. It's quite bogus anyway to explain the messages the way we
>>>> do currently, as they are actually dependent on the underlying
>>>> architecture's endianess and padding. I think we should refactor the
>>>> protocol to not transmit raw structs, but use pq_sentint and friends to
>>>> construct the messages. This was discussed earlier (see
>>>>
>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4FE2279C.2070506@enterprisedb.com),
>>>>
>>>> I think there's consensus that 9.3 would be a good time to do that
>>>> as we changed the XLogRecPtr format anyway.
>>>
>>> This is what I came up with. The replication protocol is now
>>> architecture-independent. The WAL format itself is still
>>> architecture-independent, of course, but this is useful if you want
>>> to e.g
>>> use pg_receivexlog to back up a server that runs on a different
>>> platform.
>>>
>>> I chose the int64 format to transmit timestamps, even when compiled with
>>> --disable-integer-datetimes.
>>>
>>> Please review if you have the time..
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> When I ran pg_receivexlog, I encountered the following error.
>
> Yeah, clearly I didn't test this near enough...
>
> I fixed the bugs you bumped into, new version attached.
Committed this now, after fixing a few more bugs that came up during
testing. Next, I'll take a look at the patch you sent for adding
timeouts to pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C382853BBED@szxeml509-mbs)
- Heikki
