On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
