On 24/04/17 20:00, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-24 18:29:51 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 24/04/17 07:42, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On April 23, 2017 10:31:18 PM PDT, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/17 04:31, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>> So actually maybe running regression tests through it might be
>>>> reasonable approach if we add new make target for it.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a good plan.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Note that the first patch is huge. That's because I needed to add
>>>> alternative output for largeobject test because it uses fastpath
>>>> function calls which are not allowed over replication protocol.
>>>
>>> There's no need for that restriction, is there? At least for db walsenders...
>>>
>>
>> No, there is no real need to restring the extended protocol either but
>> we do so currently. The point of allowing SQL was to allow logical
>> replication to work, not to merge walsender completely into normal
>> backend code.
>
> Well, that's understandable, but there's also the competing issue that
> we need something that is well defined and behaved.
>
It's well defined, it supports simple protocol queries, that's it.
>
>> Obviously it
>> means walsender is still special but as I said, my plan was to make it
>> work for logical replication not to merge it completely with existing
>> backends.
>
> Yea, and I don't think that's an argument for anything on its own,
> sorry.
>
It's not meant argument, it's plain statement of my intentions. I am not
stopping you from doing more if you want, however I don't see that it's
needed or any arguments about why it is needed.
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
