Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection
Date: 2014-10-31 00:27:35
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTdPX3A-k7AYSX4YTqONPe2Swi_gkOds-4U5hczdYRFsw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:

> If we stick with this version I'd argue it makes more sense to just stick
> the sync_node = and priority = statements into the if block and ditch the
> continue. </nitpick>
>
Let's go with the cleaner version then, I'd prefer code that can be read
easily for this code path. Switching back is not much complicated either.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20141031_syncrep_refactor_v3.patch text/x-diff 8.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-10-31 01:03:43 Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-10-31 00:20:52 Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X