On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 29 January 2016 at 21:11, Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru > > wrote: > >> Hi, Petr! >> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> >>> here is updated version of this patch, calling the messages logical >>> (decoding) messages consistently everywhere and removing any connection to >>> standby messages. Moving this to it's own module gave me place to write >>> some brief explanation about this so the code documentation has hopefully >>> improved as well. >>> >>> The functionality itself didn't change. >> >> >> I'd like to mention that there is my upcoming patch which is named >> generic WAL records. >> *http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdsxwzmojm6dx+tjnpyk27kt4o7ri6x_4oswcbyu1rm...@mail.gmail.com >> <http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdsxwzmojm6dx+tjnpyk27kt4o7ri6x_4oswcbyu1rm...@mail.gmail.com>* >> But it has to be distinct feature from your generic WAL logical messages. >> Theoretically, we could have generic messages with arbitrary content and >> both having custom WAL reply function and being decoded by output plugin. >> But custom WAL reply function would let extension bug break recovery, >> archiving and physical replication. And that doesn't seem to be acceptable. >> This is why we have to develop these as separate features. >> >> Should we think more about naming? Does two kinds of generic records >> confuse people? >> > > Logical messages > > Generic WAL records > > Seems like I can tell them apart. Worth checking, but I think we're OK. > I was worrying because topic name is "Generic WAL logical messages". But if we name them just "Logical messages" then it's OK for me. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company