| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal |
| Date: | 2017-04-11 13:19:45 |
| Message-ID: | 27528.1491916785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Attached patch reverses the check, and adds a failure message. I'd
> appreciate a quick review in case I have the logic backwards in my head...
I think the patch is correct, but if there's any documentation of the
walmethod APIs that would allow one to assert which side of the API got
this wrong, I sure don't see it. Would it be unreasonable to insist
on some documentation around that?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2017-04-11 13:20:33 | Re: Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-11 13:18:40 | Re: dropping a partition may cause deadlock |