Well, WAL format doesn't only depend on WAL itself, but also depend on
each resource manager. If we introduce WAL format version
identification, ISTM that we have to take care of the matching of
resource manager in the master and the slave as well.
2008/6/4 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>:
> Stephen Denne wrote:
>>
>> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>>
>>> The simplest form of synchronous wal shipping would not even need
>>> postgresql running on slave, just a small daemon which reports when wal
>>> blocks are a) received and b) synced to disk.
>>
>> While that does sound simple, I'd presume that most people would want the
>> guarantee of the same version of postgresql installed wherever the logs are
>> ending up, with the log receiver speaking the same protocol version as the
>> log sender. I imagine that would be most easily achieved through using
>> something like the continuously restoring startup mode of current
>> postgresql.
>
> Hmm, WAL version compatibility is an interesting question. Most minor
> releases hasn't changed the WAL format, and it would be nice to allow
> running different minor versions in the master and slave in those cases. But
> it's certainly not unheard of to change the WAL format. Perhaps we should
> introduce a WAL version number, similar to catalog version?
>
> --
> Heikki Linnakangas
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
------
Koichi Suzuki