| 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 13:53:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5220.1491918801@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:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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?
> Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you
> thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?
This is just internal to pg_basebackup isn't it? I think comments in
walmethods.h would be plenty.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-11 13:53:55 | Re: SUBSCRIPTIONS and pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2017-04-11 13:50:34 | Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion |