On 16.02.2011 17:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:08 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>> I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also
>>>> sends a status update every time the WAL is flushed. If the walreceiver is
>>>> busy receiving and flushing, that would happen once per WAL segment, which
>>>> seems sensible.
>>>
>>> This change can make the callback function "WalRcvDie()" call ereport(ERROR)
>>> via XLogWalRcvFlush(). This looks unsafe.
>>
>> Good catch. Is the cleanest solution to pass a boolean parameter to
>> XLogWalRcvFlush() indicating whether we're in the midst of dying?
>
> Surely if you do this then sync rep will fail to respond correctly if
> WalReceiver dies.
>
> Why is it OK to write to disk, but not OK to reply?
Because the connection might be dead. A broken connection is a likely
cause of walreceiver death.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com