Re: Replication protocol doc fix
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Replication protocol doc fix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 60fa27312d72485214abb9afb6000915b382e8de.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Replication protocol doc fix (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Replication protocol doc fix
Re: Replication protocol doc fix |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-06-17 at 12:42 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On a casual read-through this seems pretty reasonable, but it > essentially documents that libpq is doing the wrong thing by sending > Sync unconditionally. As I say above, I disagree with that from a > philosophical perspective. Then again, unless we're willing to > redefine the wire protocol, I don't have an alternative to offer. What if we simply mandate that a Sync must be sent before the server will respond with CopyInResponse/CopyBothResponse, and the client must send another Sync after CopyDone/CopyFail (or after receiving an ErrorResponse, if the client isn't going to send a CopyDone/CopyFail)? This will follow what libpq is already doing today, as far as I can tell, and it will leave the server in a definite state. In theory, it could break a client that issues Parse+Bind+Execute for a CopyIn/CopyBoth command without a Sync, but I'm not sure there are any clients that do that, and it's arguable whether the documentation permitted that or not anyway. I hacked together a quick patch; attached. Regards, Jeff Davis
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: