On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> I added a XLogWalRcvSendReply() call into XLogWalRcvFlush() so that it also
>>> sends a status update every time the WAL is flushed. If the walreceiver is
>>> busy receiving and flushing, that would happen once per WAL segment, which
>>> seems sensible.
>>
>> This change can make the callback function "WalRcvDie()" call ereport(ERROR)
>> via XLogWalRcvFlush(). This looks unsafe.
>
> Good catch. Is the cleanest solution to pass a boolean parameter to
> XLogWalRcvFlush() indicating whether we're in the midst of dying?
Agreed if the comment about why such a boolean parameter is
required is added.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
