On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas < >> hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/23/2014 08:59 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> Sounds reasonable, for back-branches. Although I'm still worried we might >>> miss some corner-case unless we go with a more wholesale solution. >>> >> >> Don't really want to be the intruder here, but isn't that the simple patch >> attached? > > > That's not right. Should check *after* the write if the segment was > completed, and close it if so. Like the attached.
Looks good to me. WalReceiverMain has almost the same code as what XLogWalRcvFileClose does. So we can refactor that. >> There is still a small window between XLogWalRcvFlush and >> XLogArchiveForceDone in XLogWalRcvWrite if the standby crashes exactly >> between them. > > > Yeah. I think we can live with that. Yes. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
