Re: Replication server timeout patch

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Why does internal_flush_if_writable compute bufptr differently from
>>> internal_flush?  And shouldn't it be static?
>>>
>>> It seems to me that this ought to be refactored so that you don't
>>> duplicate so much code.  Maybe static int internal_flush(bool
>>> nonblocking).
>>>
>>> I don't think that the while (bufptr < bufend) loop needs to contain
>>> the code to set and clear the nonblocking state.  You could do the
>>> whole loop with nonblocking mode turned on and then reenable it just
>>> once at the end.  Besides possibly being clearer, that would be more
>>> efficient and leave less room for unexpected failures.
>>
>> All these comments seem to make sense. Will fix. Thanks!
>
> Done. I attached the updated patch.

I rebased the patch against current git master.

Regards,

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