On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:42 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:38 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 2:10 AM Petr Jelinek
> > <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some minor comments about code:
> > >
> > > > + else if (res->status == WALRCV_ERROR && missing_ok)
> > > > + {
> > > > + /* WARNING. Error, but missing_ok = true. */
> > > > + ereport(WARNING,
> > >
> > > I wonder if we need to add error code to the WalRcvExecResult and check
> > > for the appropriate ones here. Because this can for example return error
> > > because of timeout, not because slot is missing. Not sure if it matters
> > > for current callers though (but then maybe don't call the param
> > > missign_ok?).
> >
> > You are right. The way we are using this function has evolved beyond
> > the original intention.
> > Probably renaming the param to something like "error_ok" would be more
> > appropriate now.
> >
>
> PSA a patch (apply on top of V28) to change the misleading param name.
>
PSA an alternative patch. This one adds a new member to
WalRcvExecResult and so is able to detect the "slot does not exist"
error. This patch also applies on top of V28, if you want it.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia