Re: Sharing more infrastructure between walsenders and regular backends (was Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-10-04T20:58:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On 4 October 2012 17:23, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >> Perhaps we could make walsenders even more like regular backends than what I >> was proposing, so that the replication commands are parsed and executed just >> like regular utility commands. However, that'd require some transaction >> support in walsender, for starters, which seems messy. It might become >> sensible in the future if the replication command set gets even more >> complicated, but it doesn't seem like a good idea at the moment. > It's come up a few times now that people want to run a few queries > either before or after running a base backup. ... > Andres suggested to me the other day we make walsender more like > regular backends. At the time I wasn't sure I agreed, but reading this > it looks like a sensible way to go. That was what I was thinking too, but on reflection there's at least one huge problem: how could we run queries without being connected to a specific database? Which walsender isn't. regards, tom lane