On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > 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. Thanks! -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
