Re: walsender.c comment with no context is hard to understand
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: walsender.c comment with no context is hard to understand |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JVrKjJvHiyVziDO8k9hwXEanHT8PVXzUVmNhrz9od32A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: walsender.c comment with no context is hard to understand (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: walsender.c comment with no context is hard to understand
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 6:30 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 03:15:22PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:55 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't know whether your assumption is correct. AFAICS, those two > > lines should be together. Let us ee if Bertrand remembers anything? > > > > IIRC the WalSndWaitForWal() call has been moved to ensure that we can determine > the timeline accurately. > This part is understandable but I don't understand the part of the comment (This is needed to determine am_cascading_walsender accurately ..) atop a call to WalSndWaitForWal(). The am_cascading_walsender is determined based on the results of RecoveryInProgress(). Can the wait for WAL by using WalSndWaitForWal() change the result of RecoveryInProgress()? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: