On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> Will it break using pg_basebackup 9.2 on a 9.1 server, though? that >> would also be very useful in the scenario of the central server... > > No unless I'm missing something. Because pg_basebackup doesn't use > any message which is defined in walprotocol.h if "-x stream" option is > not specified.
No, this is not right at all :( Changing TimestampTz fields in 9.2 would break that use case. If we support that use case, pg_basebackup 9.2 must know which an integer or a double is used for TimestampTz in 9.1 server. Otherwise pg_basebackup cannot process a WAL data message proporly. But unfortunately there is no way for pg_basebackup 9.2 to know that... 9.1 has no API to report the actual datatype of its TimestampTz field. One idea to support that use case is to add new command-line option into pg_basebackup, which specifies the datatype of TimestampTz field. You can use one pg_basebackup 9.2 executable on 9.1 server whether --disable-integer-datetimes is specified or not. But I'm not really sure if it's worth doing this, because ISTM that it's rare to build a server and a client with the different choice about TimestampTz datatype. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
