Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevExMz0xmhmVKU8ZU-J8OUUOVGGZ8X-G8UXBK2NOuj+-2kQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Reversed sync check in pg_receivewal
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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?
Agreed.
Would you say comments in the struct in walmethods.h is enough, or were you thinking actual sgml docs when you commented that?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: