From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
Date: | 2011-02-15 17:08:53 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=boSWVHgjS6EQSOV9K0y_7gokPzS5vj965NT_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-15 17:14:43 | Re: CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-15 17:06:53 | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |