Re: [HACKERS] Walsender timeouts and large transactions

On 6 December 2017 at 04:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > To me it looks like it's time to get this committed, marking as such.
>
> This version has noticeably more code rearrangement than before, and
> I'm not sure that is actually buying us anything. Why not keep the
> changes minimal?
>
> Also, TBH, this doesn't seem to have been carefully reviewed for style:
>
> - if (!pq_is_send_pending())
> - return;
> + /* Try taking fast path unless we get too close to walsender timeout.
> */
> + if (now < TimestampTzPlusMilliseconds(last_reply_timestamp,
> + wal_sender_timeout / 2))
> + {
> + if (!pq_is_send_pending())
> + return;
> + }
>
> Generally we write if (a && b) { ... } not if (a) { if (b) .. }
>
> - }
> + };
>
> It's hard to understand how this got through review.
>

Entirely my fault - I tend to forget to look at code style when I'm focused
on functionality. My apologies, and thanks for the reminder.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services