Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data

Re: Nathan Bossart
> I imagine the documentation will pretty clearly indicate that setting WAIT
> to "false" will cause CHECKPOINT to not wait for it to finish.

I can add it, it's easy enough...

> I don't understand why we need to add both FAST and IMMEDIATE.

We have both:

=# checkpoint ;
2025-06-06 18:09:25.743 CEST [872379] LOG: checkpoint starting: immediate force wait

pg_basebackup --checkpoint=fast

Could we settle for one official name for that? Then we could use that
name in all contexts.

> > + <term><literal>FLUSH_ALL</literal></term>
>
> Could we rename this to something like FLUSH_UNLOGGED or INCLUDE_UNLOGGED?
> IMHO that's more descriptive.

That's again coming from what the log message is saying:

=# checkpoint (flush_all);
2025-06-06 18:12:46.298 CEST [873436] LOG: checkpoint starting: immediate force wait flush-all

I think we should be consistent there.

#define CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_ALL 0x0010 /* Flush all pages, including those
* belonging to unlogged tables */

Maybe CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_UNLOGGED would be more explicit?

> My attempt at this patch back in 2020 included the following note, which
> seems relevant here:
>
> + Note that the server may consolidate concurrently requested checkpoints or
> + restartpoints. Such consolidated requests will contain a combined set of
> + options. For example, if one session requested an immediate checkpoint and
> + another session requested a non-immediate checkpoint, the server may combine
> + these requests and perform one immediate checkpoint.

The CHECKPOINT documentation links to `28.5. WAL Configuration`,
should this be mentioned there instead?

> We might also want to make sure it's clear that CHECKPOINT does nothing if
> there's been no database activity since the last one (or, in the case of a
> restartpoint, if there hasn't been a checkpoint record).

That's taken care of by "force":

#define CHECKPOINT_FORCE 0x0008 /* Force even if no activity */

Christoph