On 24/04/17 20:00, Andres Freund wrote: > 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. >
It's well defined, it supports simple protocol queries, that's it. > >> 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. > It's not meant argument, it's plain statement of my intentions. I am not stopping you from doing more if you want, however I don't see that it's needed or any arguments about why it is needed. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
