On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:08 AM Jeevan Chalke
wrote:
> Attached patch for v10 and pre. The same v10 patch applies cleanly.
>
> Changes related to the page checksum verification is not present on v10 and
> pre, and thus those changes are not applicable, so removed those. Also,
> wal_segment_size is
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 7:05 AM Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> >> Fixed both comments in the attached patch.
> >
> > Thanks, the patch looks good to me.
>
> Here's a version of the patch with a further change to the wording of
> the comment. I hope
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 7:05 AM Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
>> Fixed both comments in the attached patch.
>
> Thanks, the patch looks good to me.
Here's a version of the patch with a further change to the wording of
the comment. I hope this is clearer.
I think this needs to be back-patched all the way
>
> Fixed both comments in the attached patch.
>
Thanks, the patch looks good to me.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:17 PM Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> Hi Jeevan
>
> I had a look at the patch and this seems correct to me.
>
Thanks, Jeevan Ladhe.
>
> Few minor comments:
>
> + /* Check fread() error. */
> + CHECK_FREAD_ERROR(fp, pathbuf);
> +
>
> The comments above the macro call at both the
Hi Jeevan,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:26 PM Jeevan Chalke <
jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:33 PM Robert Haas
> wrote:
>
>> While reviewing a proposed patch to basebackup.c this morning, I found
>> myself a bit underwhelmed by the quality of the code and c
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:33 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> While reviewing a proposed patch to basebackup.c this morning, I found
> myself a bit underwhelmed by the quality of the code and comments in
> basebackup.c's sendFile(). I believe it's already been pointed out
> that the the retry logic here
While reviewing a proposed patch to basebackup.c this morning, I found
myself a bit underwhelmed by the quality of the code and comments in
basebackup.c's sendFile(). I believe it's already been pointed out
that the the retry logic here is not particularly correct, and the
comments demonstrate a pr
