| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 17:04:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1919.1290186268@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie nov 19 12:25:13 -0300 2010:
>> Yeah. You're adding a new fundamental state to the protocol; it's not
>> enough to bury that in the description of a message format. I don't
>> think a whole lot of new verbiage is needed, but the COPY section needs
>> to point out that this is a different state that allows both send and
>> receive, and explain what the conditions are for getting into and out of
>> that state.
> Is it sane that the new message has so specific a name?
Yeah, it might be better to call it something generic like CopyBoth.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-19 17:06:55 | Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-19 16:58:12 | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |