On 16.02.2011 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas 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?
Surely if you do this then sync rep will fail to respond correctly if
WalReceiver dies.
Why is it OK to write to disk, but not OK to reply?
Because the connection might be dead. A broken connection is a likely
cause of walreceiver death.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
