From: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, teranishih(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp |
Subject: | Re: pg_receivexlog --status-interval add fsync feedback |
Date: | 2014-08-18 14:45:10 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoCCdUCNsEoKO01r2p6BWO+oz4Zb3WFBKO+XUegTEBX1-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:55 PM, <furuyao(at)pm(dot)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Thanks for the review!
>
>> One question is why reply_fsync is defined as volatile variable?
>> Sorry I could not understand reason of that.
>
> It was affected to time_to_abort -- since it is unnecessary, it deletes.
>
>> Currently patch modifies argument of some function (e.g., Handle
>> CopyStream, Process LogDate Msg), and add the similar code to each
>> function.
>> I don't think it is good approach.
>> For example, I think that we should gather these code into one function.
>
> Feedback was judged immediately after each fsync until now.
> I revised it in reference to walreceiver.
> Feedback of fsync is judged together with the judgment of --status-interval.
> Thereby, the specification to an argument became minimum.
Thank you for updating the patch.
I did not get error with applying, and compiling.
It works fine. I think this function code has no problem.
Could you please submit patch to commit fest app?
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Baker, Keith [OCDUS Non-J&J] | 2014-08-18 15:02:58 | Re: Proposal to add a QNX 6.5 port to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-08-18 14:26:31 | Re: how to understand these macro defines such as ObjectIdAttributeNumber in sysattr.h? |