Hi all,
On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 1:37 PM Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 12:35:08PM +0530, Soumya S Murali wrote:
> > I agree with your point that the checkpoint completion message should
> > use the same terminology as the starting message ( “fast” rather than
> > “immediate”) and I have updated the patch accordingly and have
> > attached herewith for review. This patch aligns the checkpoint
> > completion log wording with the existing checkpoint starting message
> > (using “fast” instead of “immediate”) for consistency.
>
> First off, please send complete and not incremental patches.
>
> From what I can tell, you currently also do not have "wal" as reason?
> Also, you have "timed" vs "time" etc.
>
> I think it would make most sense to factor out the logic for the
> starting checkpoint reason from xlog.c ("(errmsg("checkpoint
> starting:%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s")") and use that both for starting and
> stopping.
>
>
> Michael
Thank you for the review and feedback.
I have reworked the patch to factor out the checkpoint reason logic to
use the same wording for both checkpoint start and completion log
(including wal, time, fast, force, and wait). The format has been
aligned with existing conventions and has been verified by running
make check and recovery TAP tests including t/019_replslot_limit.pl
successfully.
Kindly review my patch and let me know the feedback.
Regards,
Soumya
