From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED flag to the log message in LogCheckpointStart() |
Date: | 2022-03-03 01:27:10 |
Message-ID: | YiAZbq1Qz3sxX4No@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:39:37AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Wed, 2 Mar 2022 18:18:10 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
>> I don't think that's useful. Being in LogCheckpointStart
>> (CreateCheckPoint or CreateRestartPoint) itself means that somebody
>> has requested a checkpoint. Having CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED doesn't add
>> any value.
>
> Agreed.
Exactly my impression. This would apply now to the WAL shutdown code
paths, and I'd suspect that the callers of CreateCheckPoint() are not
going to increase soon. The point is: the logs already provide some
contexts for any of those callers so I see no need for this additional
information.
> Actually no one does but RequestCheckpoint() accepts 0 as flags.
> Checkpointer would be a bit more complex without CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED.
> I don't think it does us any good to get rid of the flag value.
I'd rather keep this code as-is.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-03-03 01:35:02 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-03-03 01:24:03 | Re: Changing "Hot Standby" to "hot standby" |