On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> +static void >> +ProcessWalSndrMessage(XLogRecPtr walEnd, TimestampTz sendTime) >> >> walEnd is not used in ProcessWalSndrMessage() at all. Can't we remove it? >> If yes, walEnd field in WalSndrMessage is also not used anywhere, so ISTM >> we can remove it. > > It's there to allow extension of the message processing to be more > complex than it currently is. Changing the protocol is much harder > than changing a function call. > > I'd like to keep it since it doesn't have any negative effects.
OK. Another problem about walEnd is that WalDataMessageHeader.walEnd is not the same kind of location as WalSndrMessage.walEnd. The former indicates the location that WAL has already been flushed (maybe not sent yet), i.e., "send request location". OTOH, the latter indicates the location that WAL has already been sent. Is this inconsistency intentional? 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