Hi,
On 2017-06-05 15:30:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + * This will trigger walsenders to send the remaining WAL, prevent them from
> + * accepting further commands. After that they'll wait till the last WAL is
> + * written.
> s/prevent/preventing/?
> I would rephrase the last sentence a bit:
> "After that each WAL sender will wait until the end-of-checkpoint
> record has been flushed on the receiver side."
I didn't like your proposed phrasing much, but I aggree that what I had
wasn't good either. Tried to improve it.
Thanks for the review.
I pushed this series, this should resolve the issue in this thread
entirely, and should fix a good chunk of the issues in the 'walsender
and parallelism' thread.
Greetings,
Andres Freund