At Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:03:14 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:18 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, by the way, I complained that the variable name "promoted" is a
> > bit confusing. It's old name was fast_promoted, which means that fast
> > promotion is being *requsted* and ongoing. On the other hand the
> > current name "promoted" still means "(fast=non-fallback) promotion is
> > ongoing" so there was a conversation as the follows.
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9fdd994d-a531-a52b-7906-e1cc22701310%40oss.nttdata.com
>
> I agree - that variable name is also not great. I am open to making
> improvements in that area and in others that have been suggested on
> this thread, but my immediate goal is to figure out whether anyone
> objects to me committing the posted patch. If nobody comes up with a
> reason why it's a bad idea in the next few days, I'll plan to move
> ahead with it.
That's fine with me.
I still haven't find a way to lose the last checkpoint due to software
failure. Repeated promotion without having new checkpoints is safe as
expected. We don't remove WAL files unless a checkpoint completes, and
a checkpoint preserves segments back to the one containing its redo
point.
In short, I'm for it.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
