Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdtQUS0zBmurmSKfWZFzhJ=H7s=XsDu-urDgO27t3jSb+Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 29 January 2016 at 21:11, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Hi, Petr!

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
here is updated version of this patch, calling the messages logical (decoding) messages consistently everywhere and removing any connection to standby messages. Moving this to it's own module gave me place to write some brief explanation about this so the code documentation has hopefully improved as well.

The functionality itself didn't change.

I'd like to mention that there is my upcoming patch which is named generic WAL records.
But it has to be distinct feature from your generic WAL logical messages. Theoretically, we could have generic messages with arbitrary content and both having custom WAL reply function and being decoded by output plugin. But custom WAL reply function would let extension bug break recovery, archiving and physical replication. And that doesn't seem to be acceptable. This is why we have to develop these as separate features.

Should we think more about naming? Does two kinds of generic records confuse people?

Logical messages

Generic WAL records

Seems like I can tell them apart. Worth checking, but I think we're OK.

I was worrying because topic name is "Generic WAL logical messages". But if we name them just "Logical messages" then it's OK for me.

------

Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions