On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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?
>
> Agreed if the comment about why such a boolean parameter is
> required is added.
OK, done.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company