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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
