On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> To be honest, my heart still balances for the Extended() interface.
>>> This reduces the risk of conflicts with back-patching with 9.5.
>>
>> Andres, others, what else can I do to make this thread move on? I can
>> produce any version of this patch depending on committer's
>> requirements.
>
> FWIW, I don't expect to have time to review this in the level of
> detail that would make me confident to commit it any time soon. I've
> said my piece on what I think the final patch should look like, and I
> hope that argument was persuasive, but I don't have anything further
> to add to what I already said. I hope some other committer has some
> cycles to look at this.
This has the merit to be clear, thanks for the input. Whatever the
approach taken at the end we have two candidates:
- Extend XLogInsert() with an extra argument for flags (Andres)
- Introduce XLogInsertExtended with this extra argument and let
XLogInsert() in peace (Robert and I).
Actually, I lied, there was still something I could do for this
thread: attached are two patches implementing both approaches as
respectively a-1 and a-2. Patch b is the set of logs I used for the
tests to show with a low checkpoint_timeout that checkpoints are
getting correctly skipped on an idle system.
Let's see what happens next.
--
Michael