On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? > > Agreed if the comment about why such a boolean parameter is > required is added.
OK, done. -- 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
