Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

Applying the patch to the current master branch throws 9 hunks. AFAICT, the
patch is good otherwise.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:20 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>

--
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
ADDR: 10318 WHALLEY BLVD, Surrey, BC
CELL：+923335449950 EMAIL: mailto:hamid(dot)akhtar(at)highgo(dot)ca
SKYPE: engineeredvirus