On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/16 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> This is not a good
>>>> >> idea, and the idea of putting a wait argument in get_controlfile does
>>>> >> not seem a good interface to me. I'd rather see get_controlfile be
>>>> >> extended with a flag saying no_error_on_failure and keep the wait
>>>> >> logic within pg_ctl.
>>> >
>>> > I guess we could write a wrapper function in pg_ctl that encapsulated
>>> > the wait logic.
>> That's what I would do.
>
> New patches, incorporating your suggestions.
Thanks for the new set!
> I moved some of the error handling out of get_controlfile() and back
> into the callers, because it was getting too weird that that function
> knew so much about the callers' intentions. That way we don't actually
> have to change the signature.
I have looked at them and the changes are looking fine for me. So I
have switched the patch as ready for committer, aka you.
Just a nit:
+ if (wait_seconds > 0)
+ {
+ sleep(1);
+ wait_seconds--;
+ continue;
+ }
This may be better this pg_usleep() instead of sleep().
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
