From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers. |
Date: | 2012-01-12 03:09:15 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwG+kKAP8xBb-zUGgH6uy0M-TiGtkc=up8oOCqg=U6rYhQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> +static void
>> +ProcessWalSndrMessage(XLogRecPtr walEnd, TimestampTz sendTime)
>>
>> walEnd is not used in ProcessWalSndrMessage() at all. Can't we remove it?
>> If yes, walEnd field in WalSndrMessage is also not used anywhere, so ISTM
>> we can remove it.
>
> It's there to allow extension of the message processing to be more
> complex than it currently is. Changing the protocol is much harder
> than changing a function call.
>
> I'd like to keep it since it doesn't have any negative effects.
OK. Another problem about walEnd is that WalDataMessageHeader.walEnd is not
the same kind of location as WalSndrMessage.walEnd. The former indicates the
location that WAL has already been flushed (maybe not sent yet), i.e.,
"send request
location". OTOH, the latter indicates the location that WAL has
already been sent.
Is this inconsistency intentional?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-12 08:53:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive messages to standby servers. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-01-11 21:50:38 | pgsql: Validate number of steps specified in permutation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2012-01-12 04:28:55 | Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-12 02:45:29 | Re: order of operations for pg_restore |