Re: Add CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED flag to the log message in LogCheckpointStart()

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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"