On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 06:49:42PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>
> The point I was trying to make was "If cps->ckpt_flags is
> CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE, we hurry up to start the new checkpoint that is
> actually immediate". That doesn't mean that this checkpoint was
> created with IMMEDIATE or running using IMMEDIATE, only that optional
> delays are now being skipped instead.
Ah, I now see what you mean.
> To let the user detect _why_ the optional delays are now being
> skipped, I propose not to report this currently running checkpoint's
> "flags | CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE", but to add reporting of the next
> checkpoint's flags; which would allow the detection and display of the
> CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE we're actually hurrying for (plus some more
> interesting information flags.
I'm still not convinced that's a sensible approach. The next checkpoint will
be displayed in the view as CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE, so you will then know about
it. I'm not sure that having that specific information in the view is
going to help, especially if users have to understand "a slow checkpoint is
actually fast even if it's displayed as slow if the next checkpoint is going to
be fast". Saying "it's timed" (which imply slow) and "it's fast" is maybe
still counter intuitive, but at least have a better chance to see there's
something going on and refer to the doc if you don't get it.
