I almost forgot this.
At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:44:08 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in
<20161121.154408.47398334.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello,
>
> At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:41:27 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in
<CAB7nPqSetnFjhGAB+tE2M68Vc_3BwbsEPe+dCMB8xnH0UYw3aA@mail.gmail.com>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > > So, all my original concern were cleared.
> >
> > Cool. Perhaps this could be marked as ready for committer then?
>
> ^^;
>
> > > The last one is
> > > resetting by a checkpointer restart.. I'd like to remove that if
> > > Andres agrees.
> >
> > Could you clarify this point? v18 makes sure that the last segment
> > switch stays in shared memory so as we could still skip the activity
> > of archive_timeout correctly.
>
> I don't doubt that it works. (I don't comment on the comment:) My
> concern is complexity. I don't think we wish to save almost no
> harm behavior caused by a thing rarely happens. But, if you and
> others on this thread don't mind the complexity, It's not worth
> asserting myself more.
>
> So, after a day waiting, I'll mark this as ready for committer
> again.
I have marked this as ready for committer again.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center