On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 7:55 PM, <furuyao@pm.nttdata.co.jp> wrote:
> Thanks for the review!
>
>> One question is why reply_fsync is defined as volatile variable?
>> Sorry I could not understand reason of that.
>
> It was affected to time_to_abort -- since it is unnecessary, it deletes.
>
>> Currently patch modifies argument of some function (e.g., Handle
>> CopyStream, Process LogDate Msg), and add the similar code to each
>> function.
>> I don't think it is good approach.
>> For example, I think that we should gather these code into one function.
>
> Feedback was judged immediately after each fsync until now.
> I revised it in reference to walreceiver.
> Feedback of fsync is judged together with the judgment of --status-interval.
> Thereby, the specification to an argument became minimum.
Thank you for updating the patch.
I did not get error with applying, and compiling.
It works fine. I think this function code has no problem.
Could you please submit patch to commit fest app?
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko