At Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:20:05 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote in
> On 1/24/22, 9:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > Now, I also find confusing the state of CreateCheckpoint() once this
> > patch gets applied. Now the code and comments imply that an
> > end-of-recovery checkpoint is a shutdown checkpoint because they
> > perform the same actions, which is fine. Could it be less confusing
> > to remove completely the "shutdown" variable instead and replace those
> > checks with "flags"? What the patch is doing is one step in this
> > direction.
>
> I looked into removing the "shutdown" variable in favor of using
> "flags" everywhere, but the patch was quite messy and repetitive. I
> think another way to make things less confusing is to replace
> "shutdown" with an inverse variable called "online." The attached
> patch does it this way.
I find that change doesn't work. As Michael said the "shutdown" is
implies "shutdown checkpoint". And end-of-recovery checkpoint is done
online (means "not-shutdowning"). shutdown_checkpoint works for me.
Renaming "shutdown checkpoint" as "exclusive checkpoint" or so also
works for me but I think it would cause halation (or zealous
objections)..
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center