Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aJEQUTYLkS836qu5@nathan обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c (Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: More protocol.h replacements this time into walsender.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > +/* Replication Protocol, sent by the primary */ > + > +#define PqReplMsg_WALData 'w' > +#define PqReplMsg_PrimaryKeepAlive 'k' > +#define PqReplMsg_PrimaryStatusUpdate 's' > + > +/* Replication Protocol, sent by the standby */ > + > +#define PqReplMsg_StandbyStatus 'r' > +#define PqReplMsg_HotStandbyFeedback 'h' > +#define PqReplMsg_RequestPrimaryStatus 'p' I know I previously +1'd a new prefix for these, but upon further review, I'm not so sure about that. The replication protocol uses many of the existing PqMsg macros already, so it would be a little strange if only a subset of the replication protocol messages used the special prefix. And IMO it would also be weird to duplicate all the macros used by both protocols. There's also backups, which use the replication protocol but have their own special characters [0]. If we're going the prefix route, would we add another prefix for those, or use the replication one? [0] https://postgr.es/m/aIOkE7fgvFOu0FI_%40nathan -- nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: