On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> +static void
>> +ProcessWalSndrMessage(XLogRecPtr walEnd, TimestampTz sendTime)
>> walEnd is not used in ProcessWalSndrMessage() at all. Can't we remove it?
>> If yes, walEnd field in WalSndrMessage is also not used anywhere, so ISTM
>> we can remove it.
> It's there to allow extension of the message processing to be more
> complex than it currently is. Changing the protocol is much harder
> than changing a function call.
> I'd like to keep it since it doesn't have any negative effects.
OK. Another problem about walEnd is that WalDataMessageHeader.walEnd is not
the same kind of location as WalSndrMessage.walEnd. The former indicates the
location that WAL has already been flushed (maybe not sent yet), i.e.,
location". OTOH, the latter indicates the location that WAL has
already been sent.
Is this inconsistency intentional?
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ashutosh Bapat||Date: 2012-01-12 04:28:55|
|Subject: Re: Confusing EXPLAIN output in case of inherited tables|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-01-12 02:45:29|
|Subject: Re: order of operations for pg_restore|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-01-12 08:53:28|
|Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Send new protocol keepalive
messages to standby servers.|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-01-11 21:50:38|
|Subject: pgsql: Validate number of steps specified in permutation|