At Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:29:03 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in
> Yeah, but the commit you quoted later reverted by commit 703f148e98
> and committed again as c6c3334364.
Yeah, right..
> > aiming to prevent walsenders from
> > generating competing WAL (by, for example, CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT)
> > records with the shutdown checkpoint. Thus, it seems that the
> > walsender cannot see the shutdown record,
> >
>
> This is true of logical walsender. The physical walsender do send
> shutdown checkpoint record before getting terminated.
Yes, I know. They differ in their blocking mechanisms.
> > and a certain amount of
> > bytes before it, as the walsender appears to have relied on the
> > checkpoint flushing its record, rather than on XLogBackgroundFlush().
> >
> > If we approve of the walsender being terminated before the shutdown
> > checkpoint, we need to "fix" the comment, then provide a function to
> > ensure the synchronization of WAL records.
> >
>
> Which comment do you want to fix?
Yeah. The part you seem to think I was trying to fix is actually
fine. Instead, I have revised the comment on the modified section to
make its intention clearer.
> > I'll consider this direction for a while.
> >
>
> Okay, thanks.
The attached patch is it. It's only for the master.
I decided not to create a new function because the simple code has
only one caller. I haven't seen the test script fail with this fix.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
