On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > >> >> I have what I believe is >> >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached. >> > >> > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis >> > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say >> > anything. >> > >> > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a >> > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future. >> >> The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown >> request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the >> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the >> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer. I'll think >> up a suitable comment. > > I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes > we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch > authors at one time.
I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers