On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also >> sends a status update every time the WAL is flushed. If the walreceiver is >> busy receiving and flushing, that would happen once per WAL segment, which >> seems sensible. > > This change can make the callback function "WalRcvDie()" call ereport(ERROR) > via XLogWalRcvFlush(). This looks unsafe.
Good catch. Is the cleanest solution to pass a boolean parameter to XLogWalRcvFlush() indicating whether we're in the midst of dying? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
