On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:38 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek
> <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some minor comments about code:
> >
> > > + else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR && missing_ok)
> > > + {
> > > + /* WARNING. Error, but missing_ok = true. */
> > > + ereport(WARNING,
> >
> > I wonder if we need to add error code to the WalRcvExecResult and check
> > for the appropriate ones here. Because this can for example return error
> > because of timeout, not because slot is missing. Not sure if it matters
> > for current callers though (but then maybe don't call the param
> > missign_ok?).
>
> You are right. The way we are using this function has evolved beyond
> the original intention.
> Probably renaming the param to something like "error_ok" would be more
> appropriate now.
>
PSA a patch (apply on top of V28) to change the misleading param name.
----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia