Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whether or not anyone bothers with the timestamp message, I think adding
>> a message type header is a Must Fix item.  A protocol with no provision
>> for extension is certainly going to bite us in the rear before long.

> Agreed a message type header is a good idea, although we don't expect
> streaming replication and the protocol to work across different major
> versions anyway.

Speaking of which, just where is the defense that makes sure that
walsender and walreceiver are compatible?  We should be checking not
only version, but all of the configuration variables that are embedded
in pg_control.
        regards, tom lane