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
Greetings,
Patch attached
Dave Cramer
0001-replace-protocol-constants-with-named-constants-from.patch
Description: Binary data
16 matches
Mail list logo
