|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Deduplicate code updating ControleFile's DBState.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 05:47:45PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree that anything that calls update_controlfile()
> should update the timestamp.
pg_control.h tells that:
pg_time_t time; /* time stamp of last pg_control update */
So, yes, that would be more consistent.
> However, I wonder if the additional
> calls to time() would have a noticeable impact.
I would not take that lightly either. Now, I don't think that any of
the code paths where UpdateControlFile() or update_controlfile() is
called are hot enough to worry about that.
+ ControlFile->time = (pg_time_t) time(NULL);
update_controlfile(DataDir, ControlFile, true);
I have to admit that it is a bit strange to do that in the backend but
not the frontend, so there is a good argument for doing that directly
in update_controlfile(). pg_resetwal does an update of the time, but
pg_rewind does not.
|Next Message||Erik Rijkers||2021-10-02 06:18:14||Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2021-10-02 05:30:51||Re: 2021-09 Commitfest|