Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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