Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
От | Hari Babu |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 007701cdea79$0cf35b30$26da1190$@kommi@huawei.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking
socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver
takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On January 02, 2013 12:41 PM Hari Babu wrote: >On January 01, 2013 10:19 PM Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >>I am reviewing your patch. >> Is the patch in context diff format? >>Yes. > >Thanks for reviewing the patch. > >> Does it apply cleanly to the current git master? >>Not quite cleanly but it doesn't produce rejects or fuzz, only offset warnings: > >Will rebase the patch to head. > >> Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc? >>The test cases are not applicable. There is no test framework for >>testing network outage in "make check". >> >>There are no documentation patches for the new --recvtimeout=INTERVAL >>and --conntimeout=INTERVAL options for either pg_basebackup or >>pg_receivexlog. > >I will add the documentation for the same. > >>Per the previous comment, no. But those are for the backend >>to notice network breakdowns and as such, they need a >>separate patch. > >I also think it is better to handle it as a separate patch for walsender. > >> Are the comments sufficient and accurate? >>This chunk below removes a comment which seems obvious enough >>so it's not needed: >>*************** >>*** 518,524 **** ReceiveXlogStream(PGconn *conn, XLogRecPtr startpos, uint32 timeline, >> goto error; >> } >> >>! /* Check the message type. */ >> if (copybuf[0] == 'k') >> { >> int pos; >>--- 559,568 ---- >> goto error; >> } >> >>! /* Set the last reply timestamp */ >>! last_recv_timestamp = localGetCurrentTimestamp(); >>! ping_sent = false; >>! >> if (copybuf[0] == 'k') >> { >> int pos; >>*************** >> >>Other comments are sufficient and accurate. > >I will fix and update the patch. The attached V2 patch in the mail handles all the review comments identified above. Regards, Hari babu.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: