Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

On 2020/06/03 12:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the 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?

I like doEndOfRecoveryCkpt or something, but I have no strong opinion
about that flag naming. So I'm ok with immediate_checkpoint_needed
if others also like that, too.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION