Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches)

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/24/14, 2:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On the serialization structure itself, should we be worried about a
>> mismatch between available GUCs on the sender vs the receiver? Presumably if
>> the sender outputs a GUC that the receiver doesn't know about we'll get an
>> error, but what if the sender didn't include something? Maybe not an issue
>> today, but could this cause problems down the road if we wanted to use the
>> serialized data some other way? But maybe I'm just being paranoid. :)
>
> I just realized there's a bigger problem there; this isn't portable against
> any changes to any of the binary elements.
>
> So I guess it's really a question of would we ever want this to function
> (as-is) cross-version.

I think that would be pretty hard to make work, but I don't mind if
someone else wants to try for some use case that they want to meet.
My goal is to make parallel query work, so the data will just be
getting transferred between two simultaneously-running children of the
same postmaster.

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