From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Samrat Revagade <revagade(dot)samrat(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |
Date: | 2013-09-19 03:25:07 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHsBv+WZALha9pkR8cxbk_s8jUy=PUAXa_pxjKTsru09g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I attached the patch which I have modified.
Thanks for updating the patch!
Here are the review comments:
I got the compiler warning:
syncrep.c:112: warning: unused variable 'i'
How does synchronous_transfer work with synchronous_commit?
+ * accept all the likely variants of "off".
This comment should be removed because synchronous_transfer
doesn't accept the value "off".
+ {"commit", SYNCHRONOUS_TRANSFER_COMMIT, true},
ISTM the third value "true" should be "false".
+ {"0", SYNCHRONOUS_TRANSFER_COMMIT, true},
Why is this needed?
+ elog(WARNING, "XLogSend sendTimeLineValidUpto(%X/%X) <=
sentPtr(%X/%X) AND sendTImeLine",
+ (uint32) (sendTimeLineValidUpto >> 32), (uint32)
sendTimeLineValidUpto,
+ (uint32) (sentPtr >> 32), (uint32) sentPtr);
Why is this needed?
+#define SYNC_REP_WAIT_FLUSH 1
+#define SYNC_REP_WAIT_DATA_FLUSH 2
Why do we need to separate the wait-queue for wait-data-flush
from that for wait-flush? ISTM that wait-data-flush also can
wait for the replication on the wait-queue for wait-flush, and
which would simplify the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-09-19 03:48:56 | Re: record identical operator |
Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-09-19 02:48:13 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |