Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>>> Should we go down the easy way and just reject connections when the flag is
>>>>>> mismatching between the client and the server (trivial to do - see the
>>>>>> attached patch)?
>>>>>
>>>>> +       char       *tmpparam;
>>>>>
>>>>> You forgot to add "const" before "char", which causes a compile-time warning.
>>>>
>>>> I went ahead and committed this, with this fix and a slight change to
>>>> the message text.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>> Hope that's OK with everyone...
>>>
>>> What about calling PQfinish() before exit() to avoid "unexpected EOF
>>> connection" error?
>>> Patch attached.
>>
>> Makes sense, applied.
>
> Thanks! So, let's go back to the original problem: pg_receivexlog
> still doesn't work fine
> under --disable-integer-datetimes. I previously posted the patch which
> fixes that problem.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwFutqnFPBYcHUCuoy1zMVDXto=o4OgsjrBWxW4zj2TCSw@mail.gmail.com
>
> Attached is the updated version of the patch. Comments?

It contains a number of unrelated changes of %m -> %s - what's the
motivation for those?

You also removed the "safeguard" of always sleeping at least 1 second
- should we keep some level of safeguard there, even if it's not in
full seconds anymore?

Is the -1 sent into localTimestampDifference still relevent at all?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/