W dniu 20.01.2016, śro o godzinie 13∶54 +0800, użytkownik Craig Ringer
> On 20 January 2016 at 06:23, Tomasz Rybak <tomasz.ry...@post.pl>
> wrote:
> > The following review has been posted through the commitfest
> > application:
> > 
> Thanks!
> >  
> > + /* Protocol capabilities */
> > Is this protocol version number and minimal recognized version
> > number,
> > or major and minor version number? I assume that
> > is current protocol version (as in config max_proto_version and
> > min_proto_version). But why we have MIN_VERSION and not
> > 
> > From code in pglogical_output.c (lines 215-225 it looks like
> > is treated as minimal protocol version number.
> > 
> > I can see that those constants are exported in
> > pglogical_infofuncs.c and
> > pglogical.sql, but I do not understand omission of MAX.
> Thanks for stopping to think about this. It's one of the areas I
> really want to get right but I'm not totally confident of.
> The idea here is that we want downwards compatibility as far as
> possible and maintainable but we can't really be upwards compatible
> for breaking protocol revisions. So the output plugin's native
> protocol version is inherently the max protocol version and we don't
> need a separate MAX.
> The downstream connects and declares to the upstream "I speak
> protocol 2 through 3". The upstream sees this and replies "I speak
> protocol 1 through 2. We have protocol 2 in common so I will use
> that." Or alternately replies with an error "I only speak protocol 1
> so we have no protocol in common". This is done via the initial
> parameters passed by the downstream to the logical decoding plugin
> and then via the startup reply message that's the first message on
> the logical decoding stream.
> We can't do a better handshake than this because the underlying
> walsender protocol and output plugin API only gives us one chance to
> send free-form information to the output plugin and it has to do so
> before the output plugin can send anything to the downstream.
> As much as possible I want to avoid ever needing to do a protocol
> bump anyway, since it'll involve adding conditionals and duplication.
> That's why the protocol tries so hard to be extensible and rely on
> declared capabilities rather than protocol version bumps. But I'd
> rather plan for it than be unable to ever do it in future.
> Much (all?) of this is discussed in the protocol docs. I should
> probably double check that and add a comment that refers to them
> there.

Thanks for explanation. I'll think about it more and try to propose
something for this.

Best regards.

Tomasz Rybak  GPG/PGP key ID: 2AD5 9860
Fingerprint A481 824E 7DD3 9C0E C40A  488E C654 FB33 2AD5 9860

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to