| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog |
| Date: | 2012-06-05 13:36:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHPBcsNk1Xr5ziruisws2eD3PvzaLufF2HMdJaGpH8OPg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> It contains a number of unrelated changes of %m -> %s - what's the
> motivation for those?
%m in fprintf() is glibc extension according to man page, so it's not portable
and should not be used, I think.
We discussed this before and reached consensus not to use %m :)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01674.php
> 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?
No because that "safeguard" would mess up with a user who sets
replication_timeout to less than one second. Though I'm not sure
whether there is really any user who wants such too short timeout....
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-06-05 13:39:03 | Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-05 13:32:08 | "page is not marked all-visible" warning in regression tests |