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.
Regards,
--
Furuya Osamu
