On 2017-04-24 18:29:51 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 24/04/17 07:42, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > > On April 23, 2017 10:31:18 PM PDT, Petr Jelinek > > <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 24/04/17 04:31, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> So actually maybe running regression tests through it might be > >> reasonable approach if we add new make target for it. > > > > That sounds like a good plan. > > > > > >> Note that the first patch is huge. That's because I needed to add > >> alternative output for largeobject test because it uses fastpath > >> function calls which are not allowed over replication protocol. > > > > There's no need for that restriction, is there? At least for db > > walsenders... > > > > No, there is no real need to restring the extended protocol either but > we do so currently. The point of allowing SQL was to allow logical > replication to work, not to merge walsender completely into normal > backend code.
Well, that's understandable, but there's also the competing issue that we need something that is well defined and behaved. > Obviously it > means walsender is still special but as I said, my plan was to make it > work for logical replication not to merge it completely with existing > backends. Yea, and I don't think that's an argument for anything on its own, sorry. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
