| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add checkpoint and redo LSN to LogCheckpointEnd log message |
| Date: | 2022-01-20 00:36:32 |
| Message-ID: | BDAE2BB3-2F37-4B7C-A053-874250A47C21@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/3/22, 5:52 PM, "Kyotaro Horiguchi" <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems to me "LSN" or just "location" is more confusing or
> mysterious than "REDO LSN" for the average user. If we want to avoid
> being technically too detailed, we would use just "start LSN=%X/%X,
> end LSN=%X/%X". And it is equivalent to "WAL range=[%X/%X, %X/%X]"..
My first instinct was that this should stay aligned with
pg_controldata, but that would mean using "location=%X/%X, REDO
location=%X/%X," which doesn't seem terribly descriptive. IIUC the
"checkpoint location" is the LSN of the WAL record for the checkpoint,
and the "checkpoint's REDO location" is the LSN where checkpoint
creation began (i.e., what you must retain for crash recovery). My
vote is for "start=%X/%X, end=%X/%X."
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Japin Li | 2022-01-20 00:44:17 | Re: Remove redundant MemoryContextSwith in BeginCopyFrom |
| Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2022-01-20 00:08:07 | Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan |