| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2010-11-15 23:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinia3TkC1NOYyDniWL7iEq0GvKxSzq8ERtNyfVK@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-16 00:07:07 | Re: Fix for seg picksplit function |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-11-15 23:41:55 | Re: How to rename each field in ROW expression? |