Re: fast promotion and log_checkpoints

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we
>>> could just use "time" as the reason, or we could just leave it.
>>>
>>> Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose
>>> anything we want. What do we want it to say?
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print "(no flags)", so that it wouldn't look
>> like there's something missing in the log message.
>
> The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the
> user interpret the log message correctly.
>
> I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead,
> since it is literally time for a checkpoint.

Or, what about using CHECKPOINT_FORCE and just printing "force"?
Currently that checkpoint always starts because of existence of the
end-of-recovery record, but I think we should ensure that the checkpoint
always starts by using that flag.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao