Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
Date
Msg-id 20200603.120622.1705889359657570500.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: elog(DEBUG2 in SpinLocked section.
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Speeding up parts of the planner using a binary search treestructure for nodes