On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Michael Paquier
>>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yep, sounds a good thing to do if master requested answer from the
>>>> client in the keepalive message. Something like the patch attached
>>>> would make the deal.
>>>
>>> Isn't it better to do this only when replication slot is used?
>> Makes sense. What about a check using reportFlushPosition then?
>
> Sounds reasonable. Thanks for updating the patch!
> But the patch could not already be applied to the master cleanly
> because c4f99d2 heavily changed the code that the patch also touches...
> I rewrote the patch and pushed it to both master and REL9_4_STABLE.
> Anyway, thanks!
Is this:
+ if (reportFlushPosition && lastFlushPosition < blockpos &&
+ walfile != 1)
really correct? Shouldn't that walfile test be against -1 (minus one)?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
