From: | <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_receivexlog add synchronous mode |
Date: | 2014-08-06 05:34:31 |
Message-ID: | A9C510524E235E44AE909CD4027AE196BF7C70D181@MBX-MSG-SV03.msg.nttdata.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> I have improved the patch by making following changes:
> >>
> >> 1. Since stream_stop() was redundant, stream_stop() at the time of
> WAL file closing was deleted.
> >>
> >> 2. Change the Flash judging timing for the readability of source code.
> >> I have changed the Flash judging timing , from the continuous
> message after receiving to
> >> before the feedbackmassege decision of continue statement after
> execution.
> >
> > Thanks for the updated version of the patch!
> >
> > While reviewing the patch, I found that HandleCopyStream() is still
> > long and which decreases the readability of the source code.
> > So I feel inclined to refactor the HandleCopyStream() more for better
> > readability. What about the attached refactoring patch?
>
> Sorry, I forgot to attached the patch in previous email. So attached.
Thank you for the refactoring patch.
I did a review of the patch.
- break; /* ignore the rest of this XLogData packet */
+ return true; /* ignore the rest of this XLogData packet */
For break statement at close of wal file, it is a return to true.
It may be a behavior of continue statement. Is it satisfactory?
The walreceiver distributes XLogWalRcvProcessMsg and XLogWalRcvWrite, but isn't that division necessary?
Regards,
--
Furuya Osamu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-08-06 05:48:55 | Re: Proposal: Incremental Backup |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-08-06 05:01:56 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |