Hi, On 2017-06-05 15:30:38 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > + * This will trigger walsenders to send the remaining WAL, prevent them from > + * accepting further commands. After that they'll wait till the last WAL is > + * written. > s/prevent/preventing/? > I would rephrase the last sentence a bit: > "After that each WAL sender will wait until the end-of-checkpoint > record has been flushed on the receiver side."
I didn't like your proposed phrasing much, but I aggree that what I had wasn't good either. Tried to improve it. Thanks for the review. I pushed this series, this should resolve the issue in this thread entirely, and should fix a good chunk of the issues in the 'walsender and parallelism' thread. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers