Re: Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal
Date: 2017-04-11 13:53:21
Message-ID: 5220.1491918801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
>> walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
>> this wrong, I sure don't see it. Would it be unreasonable to insist
>> on some documentation around that?

> Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you
> thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?

This is just internal to pg_basebackup isn't it? I think comments in
walmethods.h would be plenty.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-04-11 13:53:55 Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2017-04-11 13:50:34 Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion