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

Reply via email to