On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 21:19, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > On 2019-Sep-26, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
> > > Hi Alvaro, does this count as a review?
> >
> > Well, I'm already a second pair of eyes for Craig's code, so I think it
> > does :-) I would have liked
On 2019-Sep-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-26, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Hi Alvaro, does this count as a review?
>
> Well, I'm already a second pair of eyes for Craig's code, so I think it
> does :-) I would have liked confirmation from Craig that my change
> looks okay to him too, but
On 2019-Sep-26, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
> > Reading over this code, I noticed that the detection of the catch-up
> > state ends up being duplicate code, so I would rework that function as
> > in the attached patch.
> >
> > The naming of
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Reading over this code, I noticed that the detection of the catch-up
> state ends up being duplicate code, so I would rework that function as
> in the attached patch.
>
> The naming of those flags (got_SIGUSR2, got_STOPPING) is terrible,
On 2019-Sep-03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jul-25, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > Patch attached.
>
> Here's a non-broken version of this patch. I have not done anything
> other than reflowing the new comment.
Reading over this code, I noticed that the detection of the catch-up
state ends up
On 2019-Jul-25, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Patch attached.
Here's a non-broken version of this patch. I have not done anything
other than reflowing the new comment.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
