Thanks for the review! > One question is why reply_fsync is defined as volatile variable? > Sorry I could not understand reason of that.
It was affected to time_to_abort -- since it is unnecessary, it deletes. > Currently patch modifies argument of some function (e.g., Handle > CopyStream, Process LogDate Msg), and add the similar code to each > function. > I don't think it is good approach. > For example, I think that we should gather these code into one function. Feedback was judged immediately after each fsync until now. I revised it in reference to walreceiver. Feedback of fsync is judged together with the judgment of --status-interval. Thereby, the specification to an argument became minimum. Regards, -- Furuya Osamu
pg_receivexlog-fsync-feedback-v3.patch
Description: pg_receivexlog-fsync-feedback-v3.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
