Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sravan Kumar <sravanvcybage(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"
Date: 2023-02-01 04:30:13
Message-ID: 20230201043013.GA3194884@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:39:56AM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I noticed that time.h is no longer needed by the archiver, so I removed
> that and fixed an indentation nitpick in the attached v2. I'm going to set
> the commitfest entry to ready-for-committer shortly after sending this
> message.

I'm not sure why I thought time.h was no longer needed. time() is clearly
used elsewhere in this file. Here's a new version with that added back.

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-simplify-wait-loop-in-the-archiver.patch text/x-diff 1.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-02-01 04:34:50 Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2023-02-01 04:29:49 Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables