On 12/12/2014 04:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
I propose the attached (I admit I haven't tested it).
Actually if you do it this way I think that it would be worth adding the
small optimization Fujii-san mentioned upthread: if priority is equal to 1,
we leave the loop earlier and return immediately the pointer. All those
things gathered give the patch attached, that I actually tested FWIW with
multiple standbys and multiple entries in s_s_names.
Ok, committed.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
