Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection
Date: 2014-12-12 12:38:31
Message-ID: 548AE1C7.3070508@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/12/2014 04:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
> hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)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.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-12-12 12:50:19 Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2014-12-12 08:00:48 Re: [Bug] Inconsistent result for inheritance and FOR UPDATE.