Committed.
--
nathan
On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:54:13PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> I tried to apply your patch and it says
>
> $ git am -3 v5-0001-Expand-usage-of-protocol-characters.patch
> Applying: Expand usage of protocol characters.
> Warning: commit message did not conform to UTF-8.
> You may want to amend it
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025, at 12:26 AM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Okay, I think I've addressed all the latest feedback in v5.
>
LGTM.
I tried to apply your patch and it says
$ git am -3 v5-0001-Expand-usage-of-protocol-characters.patch
Applying: Expand usage of protocol characters.
Warning: commit messa
On 2025-Aug-05, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Okay, I think I've addressed all the latest feedback in v5.
LGTM.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Nunca confiaré en un traidor. Ni siquiera si el traidor lo he creado yo"
(Barón Vladimir Harkonnen)
Okay, I think I've addressed all the latest feedback in v5.
--
nathan
>From 00540a80854d3fc598a4b99daddfe1e7c0817b5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 22:18:11 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/1] Expand usage of protocol characters.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: tex
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 4:58 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is an updated patch that includes 1) added uses of PqMsg_* macros, 2)
> new PqReplMsg_* macros, and 3) new PqBackupMsg_* macros. Thoughts?
>
-* 'd' means a standby reply wrapped in a CopyData packet.
+*
On 2025-Aug-05, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Here is an updated patch that includes 1) added uses of PqMsg_* macros, 2)
> new PqReplMsg_* macros, and 3) new PqBackupMsg_* macros. Thoughts?
Hmm, I think if you're going to add the backup ones, then it'd be good
to update ReceiveArchiveStreamChunk() to
Here is an updated patch that includes 1) added uses of PqMsg_* macros, 2)
new PqReplMsg_* macros, and 3) new PqBackupMsg_* macros. Thoughts?
--
nathan
>From 6a1d03725009837c5ce99dcfc283fa565d587d13 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Bossart
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 14:53:42 -0500
Subject: [PAT
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:11:26PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>> The replication protocol uses many of the
>> existing PqMsg macros already, so it would be a little strange if only a
>> subset of the replication protocol messages used th
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:56 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> The replication protocol uses many of the
> existing PqMsg macros already, so it would be a little strange if only a
> subset of the replication protocol messages used the special prefix.
May I ask why? These messages are legitimately diff
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> +/* Replication Protocol, sent by the primary */
> +
> +#define PqReplMsg_WALData'w'
> +#define PqReplMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive 'k'
> +#define PqReplMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate's'
> +
> +/* Replic
On 2025-Jul-28, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I chose PqReplMsg patch attached
I think you sent a patch that applied on top of your previous patch
instead of a patch on top of master. Here it is as a standalone patch.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
>Fro
On 2025-Jul-25, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 06:28:28AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 06:23, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Yeah, we could rename it, as in the attached. It doesn't harm anything.
> >
> > Consistency is good. If your patch were applied, then
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 10:38, Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 05:39:14PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> > jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> Since these are part of the replication subprotocol (i.e. tunneled,
> >> via CopyD
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 05:39:14PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Since these are part of the replication subprotocol (i.e. tunneled,
>> via CopyData) rather than the top-level wire protocol, do they deserve
>>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 06:28:28AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 06:23, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yeah, we could rename it, as in the attached. It doesn't harm anything.
>
> Consistency is good. If your patch were applied, then it would be
> consistent to use WALData
+1
--
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 06:23, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Jul-25, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > FYI, the reason I used XLogData is because the term is used multiple
> times
> > here https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/protocol-replication.html
>
> Yeah, we could rename it, as in the attached. I
On 2025-Jul-25, Dave Cramer wrote:
> FYI, the reason I used XLogData is because the term is used multiple times
> here https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/protocol-replication.html
Yeah, we could rename it, as in the attached. It doesn't harm anything.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deut
Dave Cramer
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Jul-24, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> > jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer
> wrote:
>
> > > +/* Replication Protocol
On 2025-Jul-24, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
> jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
> > +/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */
> > +
> > +#define PqMsg_XlogData 'w'
> > +#de
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 16:49, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since this is a whole new symbol, I'd rather you use the term WAL rather
> than Xlog ...
>
Fair enough
Dave
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 17:05, Jacob Champion <
jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Patch attached
>
> +/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */
> +
> +#define PqMsg_XlogData 'w'
> +#define PqMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM Dave Cramer wrote:
> Patch attached
+/* Replication Protocol sent by the primary */
+
+#define PqMsg_XlogData 'w'
+#define PqMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive 'k'
+#define PqMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate 's'
+
+
+/* Replication Protocol sent by the standby */
+
+
Hello,
Since this is a whole new symbol, I'd rather you use the term WAL rather than
Xlog ...
--
Álvaro Herrera
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 05:34, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 at 11:40, Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
>
>> Committed. I noticed that there are several characters with no match in
>> protocol.h. It might be worth adding those.
>>
>> In walsender.c:
>>
>> 1537: pq_sendbyte(ctx
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 at 11:40, Nathan Bossart
wrote:
> Committed. I noticed that there are several characters with no match in
> protocol.h. It might be worth adding those.
>
> In walsender.c:
>
> 1537: pq_sendbyte(ctx->out, 'w');
> 2353: case 'r':
> 2357:
Committed. I noticed that there are several characters with no match in
protocol.h. It might be worth adding those.
In walsender.c:
1537: pq_sendbyte(ctx->out, 'w');
2353: case 'r':
2357: case 'h':
2361: case 'p':
2755: p
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 05:54:48PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Patch attached
Thanks. I plan to look into committing this tomorrow.
--
nathan
28 matches
Mail list logo
