| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2020-05-19 03:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20200519034649.GA8356@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-May-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > BTW while you're messing with checkpointer, I propose this patch to
> > simplify things.
>
> It seems to me that this would have a benefit if we begin to have a
> code path in CreateCheckpoint() where where it makes sense to let the
> checkpointer know that no checkpoint has happened, and now we assume
> that a skipped checkpoint is a performed one.
Well, my first attempt at this was returning false in that case, until I
realized that it would break the scheduling algorithm.
> As that's not the case now, I would vote for keeping the code as-is.
The presented patch doesn't have any functional impact; it just writes
the same code in a more concise way. Like you, I wouldn't change this
if we didn't have a reason to rewrite this section of code.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-19 04:41:39 | Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-05-19 03:42:17 | Re: Missing grammar production for WITH TIES |