On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
>> hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Sounds reasonable, for back-branches. Although I'm still worried we might
>>> miss some corner-case unless we go with a more wholesale solution.
>>>
>>
>> Don't really want to be the intruder here, but isn't that the simple patch
>> attached?
>
>
> That's not right. Should check *after* the write if the segment was
> completed, and close it if so. Like the attached.
Looks good to me. WalReceiverMain has almost the same code as
what XLogWalRcvFileClose does. So we can refactor that.
>> There is still a small window between XLogWalRcvFlush and
>> XLogArchiveForceDone in XLogWalRcvWrite if the standby crashes exactly
>> between them.
>
>
> Yeah. I think we can live with that.
Yes.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao