On 30.09.2024 06:26, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Thanks for the review! I've pushed the 0001 patch.
Thanks a lot!
>> As for switching in the pg_proc.dat entries the idea was to put them in order
>> so that the pg_stat_get_checkpointer* functions were grouped together.
>> I don't know if this is the common and accepted practice. Simply i like it better this way.
>> Sure, if you think it's unnecessary, let it stay as is with minimal diff.
>
> I understand your point, but I didn't made that change to keep the diff minimal,
> which should make future back-patching easier.
Agreed. Its quite reasonable. I've not take into account the backporting
possibility at all. This is of course wrong.
>> In addition, checkpoints may be skipped due to "checkpoints are occurring
>> too frequently" error. Not sure, but maybe add this information to
>> the new description?
>
> From what I can see in the code, that error message doesn’t seem to indicate
> the checkpoint is being skipped. In fact, checkpoints are still happening
> actually when that message appears. Am I misunderstanding something?
No, you are right! This is my oversight. I didn't notice that elevel is just a log
not a error. Thanks!
With the best wishes,
--
Anton A. Melnikov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
