On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> There are two things that I think are pretty clear. If the receiver
>>>> has wal_receiver_status_interval=0, then we should ignore
>>>> replication_timeout for that connection.
>>>
>>> The patch still doesn't check that wal_receiver_status_interval
>>> is set up properly. I'll implement that later.
>>
>> Done. I attached the updated patch.
>
> Why does internal_flush_if_writable compute bufptr differently from
> internal_flush? And shouldn't it be static?
>
> It seems to me that this ought to be refactored so that you don't
> duplicate so much code. Maybe static int internal_flush(bool
> nonblocking).
>
> I don't think that the while (bufptr < bufend) loop needs to contain
> the code to set and clear the nonblocking state. You could do the
> whole loop with nonblocking mode turned on and then reenable it just
> once at the end. Besides possibly being clearer, that would be more
> efficient and leave less room for unexpected failures.
All these comments seem to make sense. Will fix. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
