From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data |
Date: | 2025-06-06 10:31:25 |
Message-ID: | fc1ed66f-e95a-4d10-a4f7-7fa4bb9a7084@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025/06/06 19:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andres Freund
>> I'd add a 'mode' that can be set to an arbitrary string, which then can be
>> validated in C code. That seems more future proof.
>
> Changed in the attached v2, thanks.
When I applied the patch and compiled it, I got the following warnings:
utility.c:946:4: warning: label followed by a declaration is a C23 extension [-Wc23-extensions]
946 | CheckPointStmt *stmt = (CheckPointStmt *) parsetree;
| ^
utility.c:947:16: warning: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
947 | ListCell *lc;
| ^
2 warnings generated.
RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_WAIT |
+ (immediate ? CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE : 0) |
+ (flush_all ? CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_ALL : 0) |
Some users might want to trigger a spread checkpoint but not wait for
it to finish, since it could take a long time? If that's a valid use case,
maybe we should add a WAIT option to let users choose whether to wait for
the checkpoint to complete or not?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2025-06-06 11:03:12 | Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-06-06 10:07:13 | Re: synchronized_standby_slots used in logical replication |