| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com, jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is it correct to update db state in control file as "shutting down" during end-of-recovery checkpoint? |
| Date: | 2022-02-28 01:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20220228.105106.1747739292876156438.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:11:15 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:09:53PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > This one has been quiet for a while. Should we mark it as
> > returned-with-feedback?
>
> Yes, that's my feeling and I got cold feet about this change. This
> patch would bring some extra visibility for something that's not
> incorrect either on HEAD, as end-of-recovery checkpoints are the same
> things as shutdown checkpoints. And there is an extra argument where
> back-patching would become a bit more tricky in an area that's already
> a lot sensitive.
That sounds like we should reject the patch as we don't agree to its
objective. If someday end-of-recovery checkpoints functionally
diverge from shutdown checkpoints but leave (somehow) the transition
alone, we may visit this again but it would be another proposal.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-28 02:01:41 | Re: Is it correct to update db state in control file as "shutting down" during end-of-recovery checkpoint? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-28 01:36:20 | Re: Checkpointer sync queue fills up / loops around pg_usleep() are bad |