| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 08:15:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20200421.171531.2006234963519331307.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:26:16 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
> Patch attached. I will add this into the first CF for v14.
- if (!fast_promoted)
+ if (!promoted)
RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY |
CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE |
CHECKPOINT_WAIT);
If we don't find the checkpoint record just before, we don't insert
End-Of-Recovery record then run an immediate chekpoint. I think if we
nuke the non-fast promotion, shouldn't we insert the EOR record even
in that case?
Or, as Andres suggested upthread, do we always insert it?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-21 08:34:26 | Re: forgotten initalization of a variable |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-21 08:08:31 | Re: WAL page magic errors (and plenty others) got hard to debug. |