On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, <furu...@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote: >> Thank you for updating the patch. >> I reviewed the patch. >> >> First of all, I think that we should not append the above message to >> section of '-r' option. >> (Or these message might not be needed at all) Whether flush location in >> feedback message is valid, is not depend on '-r' option. >> >> If we use '-r' option and 'S' option (i.g., replication slot) then >> pg_receivexlog informs valid flush location to primary server at the same >> time as doing fsync. >> But, if we don't specify replication slot then the flush location in >> feedback message always invalid. >> So I think Fujii-san pointed out that sending of invalid flush location >> is not needed if pg_receivexlog does not use replication slot. > > Thanks for the review! > > I understand the attention message wasn't appropriate. > > To report the write location, even If you do not specify a replication slot. > So the fix only appended messages. > > There was a description of the flush location section of '-S' option, > but I intended to catch eye more and added a message. > > Is it better to make specification of the -S option indispensable?
The patch cannot be applied to HEAD cleanly. Could you update the patch? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
