Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
| От | Kyotaro Horiguchi |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20200603.120622.1705889359657570500.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:43:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
> I will change the status back to Needs Review.
record = ReadCheckpointRecord(xlogreader, checkPointLoc, 1, false);
if (record != NULL)
{
- fast_promoted = true;
+ promoted = true;
Even if we missed the last checkpoint record, we don't give up
promotion and continue fall-back promotion but the variable "promoted"
stays false. That is confusiong.
How about changing it to fallback_promotion, or some names with more
behavior-specific name like immediate_checkpoint_needed?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: