On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek
<petr.jeli...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some minor comments about code:
>
> > + else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR && missing_ok)
> > + {
> > + /* WARNING. Error, but missing_ok = true. */
> > + ereport(WARNING,
>
> I wonder if we need to add error code to the WalRcvExecResult and check
> for the appropriate ones here. Because this can for example return error
> because of timeout, not because slot is missing. Not sure if it matters
> for current callers though (but then maybe don't call the param
> missign_ok?).
You are right. The way we are using this function has evolved beyond
the original intention.
Probably renaming the param to something like "error_ok" would be more
appropriate now.
----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
