On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
WalSndrMessage isn't set to anything, its just a definition. PrimaryKeepaliveMessage is a message type that uses WalSndrMessage. That message type is only sent when the WalSndr is quiet, so what is the difference, in that case? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
