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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinia3TkC1NOYyDniWL7iEq0GvKxSzq8ERtNyfVK@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

This appears to be the only obvious unresolved issue regarding this patch:

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=412

I don't have a strong personal position on whether or not we should do
this, but it strikes me that Tom hasn't given much justification for
why he thinks we should do this, what benefit we'd get from it, or
what the design should look like.  So I guess the question is whether
Tom - or anyone - would like to make a case for a more serious
protocol overhaul, or whether we should just go with the approach
proposed here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Itagaki Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: How to rename each field in ROW expression?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix for seg picksplit function