On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I assume what would happen is the slave would PANIC upon seeing a WAL
> >> record code it didn't recognize.
> > I wonder if we should for the future have the START_REPLICATION command
> > the IDENTIFY_SYSTEM would probably make more sense - or even adding a new
> > command like IDENTIFY_CLIENT. The point is, something in the replication
> > protocol) have walreceiver include it's version sent to the master. That
> > way we could have the walsender identify a walreceiver that's too old and
> > disconnect it right away - with a much nicer error message than a PANIC.
> Meh. That only helps for the case of streaming replication, and not for
> the thirty-seven other ways that some WAL might arrive at something that
> wants to replay it.
> It might be worth doing anyway, but I can't get excited about it for this
It does, but I bet it's one of the by far most common cases. I'd say it's
that one and restore-from-backup that would cover a huge majority of all
cases. If we can cover those, we don't have to be perfect - so unless it
turns out to be ridiculously complicated, I think it would be worthwhile