On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:38 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek > <petr.jeli...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Some minor comments about code: > > > > > + else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR && missing_ok) > > > + { > > > + /* WARNING. Error, but missing_ok = true. */ > > > + ereport(WARNING, > > > > I wonder if we need to add error code to the WalRcvExecResult and check > > for the appropriate ones here. Because this can for example return error > > because of timeout, not because slot is missing. Not sure if it matters > > for current callers though (but then maybe don't call the param > > missign_ok?). > > You are right. The way we are using this function has evolved beyond > the original intention. > Probably renaming the param to something like "error_ok" would be more > appropriate now. >
PSA a patch (apply on top of V28) to change the misleading param name. ---- Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v1-0001-ReplicationSlotDropAtPubNode-param.patch
Description: Binary data