Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages
| От | Simon Riggs |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CANP8+jLDSV3gtaiyhRuXZK+dZg_42DCmRUU7gxLDn_0BEP-T1Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 April 2016 at 15:29, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
--
On 2016-04-06 10:24:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2016-04-06 10:15:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, that's something worth thinking about. I assume that
> >> pg_logical_slot_get_changes could be executed in a database different from
> >> the one where a change was originated?
>
> > You can execute it, but you'll get an error:
>
> Oh good. I was afraid we had an unrecognized can o' worms here.
As posted nearby, there's a hole in that defense; for the messages
only. Pretty easy to solve though.
My instinct was to put in a test for non-ascii text; even if we can't keep that test, it has highlighted a hole we wouldn't have spotted for a while, so I'll call that "good catch" then.
Perhaps easy to solve, but how do we test it is solved?
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: