| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: persist logical slots to disk during shutdown checkpoint |
| Date: | 2023-09-13 07:14:56 |
| Message-ID: | ZQFhcFHhAbKTy1gp@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:07:12PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Consider if we move this call to bgwriter (aka flushing slots is no
> longer part of a checkpoint), Would that be okay? Previously, I think
> it was okay but not now. I see an argument to keep that as it is as
> well because we have already mentioned the special shutdown checkpoint
> case. By the way, I have changed this because Ashutosh felt it is no
> longer correct to keep the first sentence as it is. See his email[1]
> (Relying on the first sentence, ...).
Hmmm.. Okay..
> As other places don't have an assert, I didn't add one here but we can
> add one here.
I'd be OK with an assertion here at the end, though I'd still choose a
stricter run-time check if I were to apply that myself.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-13 07:18:30 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-09-13 06:52:39 | Re: pg_ctl start may return 0 even if the postmaster has been already started on Windows |