Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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