On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:30 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 4:11 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 3:38 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > * This needn't actually be part of a checkpoint, but it's a convenient
> > > - * location.
> > > + * location. is_shutdown is true in case of a shutdown checkpoint.
> > >
> > > Relying on the first sentence, if we decide to not persist the
> > > replication slot at the time of checkpoint, would that be OK? It
> > > doesn't look like a convenience thing to me any more.
> > >
> >
> > Instead of removing that comment, how about something like this: "This
> > needn't actually be part of a checkpoint except for shutdown
> > checkpoint, but it's a convenient location."?
> >
>
> I find the wording a bit awkward. My version would be "Checkpoint is a
> convenient location to persist all the slots. But in a shutdown
> checkpoint, indicated by is_shutdown = true, we also update
> confirmed_flush." But please feel free to choose whichever version you
> are comfortable with.
>
I think saying we also update confirmed_flush appears unclear to me.
So, I tried another version by changing the entire comment to:
"Normally, we can flush dirty replication slots at regular intervals
by any background process like bgwriter but checkpoint is a convenient
location to persist. Additionally, in case of a shutdown checkpoint,
we also identify the slots for which confirmed_flush has been updated
since the last time it persisted and flush them."
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
