Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal
Date
Msg-id CABUevExhfaC00WxGx3JsvMRQyJ2qwo=bsjUZ1ussLJRuU+SV=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
>> walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
>> this wrong, I sure don't see it.  Would it be unreasonable to insist
>> on some documentation around that?

> Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you
> thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?

This is just internal to pg_basebackup isn't it?  I think comments in
walmethods.h would be plenty.

Local to pg_basebackup and pg_receivewal, yes.

Something like the attached? 

--
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Merge join for GiST
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] error handling in RegisterBackgroundWorker