Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Some minor comments about code:
>
> > +             else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR && missing_ok)
> > +             {
> > +                     /* WARNING. Error, but missing_ok = true. */
> > +                     ereport(WARNING,
>
> I wonder if we need to add error code to the WalRcvExecResult and check
> for the appropriate ones here. Because this can for example return error
> because of timeout, not because slot is missing. Not sure if it matters
> for current callers though (but then maybe don't call the param
> missign_ok?).

You are right. The way we are using this function has evolved beyond
the original intention.
Probably renaming the param to something like "error_ok" would be more
appropriate now.

----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia