Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also
>>> sends a status update every time the WAL is flushed. If the walreceiver is
>>> busy receiving and flushing, that would happen once per WAL segment, which
>>> seems sensible.
>>
>> This change can make the callback function "WalRcvDie()" call ereport(ERROR)
>> via XLogWalRcvFlush(). This looks unsafe.
>
> Good catch.  Is the cleanest solution to pass a boolean parameter to
> XLogWalRcvFlush() indicating whether we're in the midst of dying?

Agreed if the comment about why such a boolean parameter is
required is added.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center