On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:55 PM, <furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote: > 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.
Thank you for updating the patch. I did not get error with applying, and compiling. It works fine. I think this function code has no problem. Could you please submit patch to commit fest app? Regards, ------- Sawada Masahiko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
