Re: pg_receivexlog add synchronous mode

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)