On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> Specifically, if we're not going to remove write location, then I >>>> think we need to apply something like the attached. >>> >>> The protocol supports different write/fsync values, so the view should >>> display them. >> >> That's exactly the point. > > No its not. > >> Currently, we have a protocol that supports >> different write and fsync values, but the code as written does not >> actually ever send a reply at any time when the two values can ever be >> different. So there is no point in sending both of them. The write >> location is completely redundant with the fsync location and therefore >> completely useless. We shouldn't bother sending the value twice, or >> displaying it twice, if it's absolutely 100% guaranteed to be >> identical in every case. > > As of 9.1, we now support other tools that use the protocol, so you > cannot assume you know what is being sent, just because one sender has > certain characteristics.
Oh, really? Is this strictly hypothetical or is such a beast planned/already in existence? I'm just afraid this is going to be confusing to users who will expect it to do something that it doesn't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
