On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@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?
Agreed if the comment about why such a boolean parameter is required is added. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
