> >> I have improved the patch by making following changes:
> >>
> >> 1. Since stream_stop() was redundant, stream_stop() at the time of
> WAL file closing was deleted.
> >>
> >> 2. Change the Flash judging timing for the readability of source code.
> >> I have changed the Flash judging timing , from the continuous
> message after receiving to
> >> before the feedbackmassege decision of continue statement after
> execution.
> >
> > Thanks for the updated version of the patch!
> >
> > While reviewing the patch, I found that HandleCopyStream() is still
> > long and which decreases the readability of the source code.
> > So I feel inclined to refactor the HandleCopyStream() more for better
> > readability. What about the attached refactoring patch?
>
> Sorry, I forgot to attached the patch in previous email. So attached.
Thank you for the refactoring patch.
I did a review of the patch.
- break; /* ignore the rest of this XLogData packet */
+ return true; /* ignore the rest of this XLogData packet */
For break statement at close of wal file, it is a return to true.
It may be a behavior of continue statement. Is it satisfactory?
The walreceiver distributes XLogWalRcvProcessMsg and XLogWalRcvWrite, but isn't that division necessary?
Regards,
--
Furuya Osamu
