Re: WAL format changes

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> Well, that was easier than I thought. Attached is a patch to make XLogRecPtr
>> a uint64, on top of my other WAL format patches. I think we should go ahead
>> with this.
>
> +1.
>
>> The LSNs on pages are still stored in the old format, to avoid changing the
>> on-disk format and breaking pg_upgrade. The XLogRecPtrs stored the control
>> file and WAL are changed, however, so an initdb (or at least pg_resetxlog)
>> is required.
>
> Seems fine.
>
>> Should we keep the old representation in the replication protocol messages?
>> That would make it simpler to write a client that works with different
>> server versions (like pg_receivexlog). Or, while we're at it, perhaps we
>> should mandate network-byte order for all the integer and XLogRecPtr fields
>> in the replication protocol. That would make it easier to write a client
>> that works across different architectures, in >= 9.3. The contents of the
>> WAL would of course be architecture-dependent, but it would be nice if
>> pg_receivexlog and similar tools could nevertheless be
>> architecture-independent.
>
> I share Andres' question about how we're doing this already.  I think
> if we're going to break this, I'd rather do it in 9.3 than 5 years
> from now.  At this point it's just a minor annoyance, but it'll
> probably get worse as people write more tools that understand WAL.

If we are looking at breaking it, and we are especially concerned
about something like pg_receivexlog... Is it something we could/should
change in the protocl *now* for 9.2, to make it non-broken in any
released version? As in, can we extract just the protocol change and
backpatch that to 9.2beta?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/