| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com |
| Cc: | hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-06-03 03:06:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20200603.120622.1705889359657570500.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:43:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
> I will change the status back to Needs Review.
record = ReadCheckpointRecord(xlogreader, checkPointLoc, 1, false);
if (record != NULL)
{
- fast_promoted = true;
+ promoted = true;
Even if we missed the last checkpoint record, we don't give up
promotion and continue fall-back promotion but the variable "promoted"
stays false. That is confusiong.
How about changing it to fallback_promotion, or some names with more
behavior-specific name like immediate_checkpoint_needed?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2020-06-03 03:14:51 | Re: Speeding up parts of the planner using a binary search tree structure for nodes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-06-03 03:05:10 | Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section. |