Re: libpq changes for synchronous replication

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie nov 19 12:25:13 -0300 2010:
>> Yeah.  You're adding a new fundamental state to the protocol; it's not
>> enough to bury that in the description of a message format.  I don't
>> think a whole lot of new verbiage is needed, but the COPY section needs
>> to point out that this is a different state that allows both send and
>> receive, and explain what the conditions are for getting into and out of
>> that state.

> Is it sane that the new message has so specific a name?

Yeah, it might be better to call it something generic like CopyBoth.

			regards, tom lane