On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> Considering how crazy the conditions to make the information fetched >> by users inconsistent are met, I agree with that. > > Pushed.
Thanks Álvaro for pushing the patch. I had a second look and the result looks good to me. - SpinLockAcquire(&walsnd->mutex); + } + pid = walsnd->pid; The WAL receiver code used a cast to (int) in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver(). I don't recall adding it. Why not being consistent for both by removing the one of the WAL receiver code? > In passing, clean up some leftover braces which were used to create > unconditional blocks. Once upon a time these were used for > volatile-izing accesses to those shmem structs, which is no longer > required. Many other occurrences of this pattern remain. Here are the places where a cleanup can happen: - WalSndSetState - ProcessStandbyReplyMessage - XLogRead, 2 places - XLogSendLogical - WalRcvWaitForStartPosition - WalRcvDie - XLogWalRcvFlush - ProcessWalSndrMessage In most of the places of the WAL sender, braces could be removed to improve the style. For the WAL receiver, declarations are not necessary. As a matter of style, why not cleaning up just the WAL sender stuff? Changing the WAL receiver code just to remove some declarations would not improve readability, and would make back-patch more difficult. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
