On 2020-May-19, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > BTW while you're messing with checkpointer, I propose this patch to
> > simplify things.
>
> It seems to me that this would have a benefit if we begin to have a
> code path in CreateCheckpoint() where where it makes sense to let the
> checkpointer know that no checkpoint has happened, and now we assume
> that a skipped checkpoint is a performed one.
Well, my first attempt at this was returning false in that case, until I
realized that it would break the scheduling algorithm.
> As that's not the case now, I would vote for keeping the code as-is.
The presented patch doesn't have any functional impact; it just writes
the same code in a more concise way. Like you, I wouldn't change this
if we didn't have a reason to rewrite this section of code.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services