At Tue, 25 Jan 2022 19:20:05 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote in > On 1/24/22, 9:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > Now, I also find confusing the state of CreateCheckpoint() once this > > patch gets applied. Now the code and comments imply that an > > end-of-recovery checkpoint is a shutdown checkpoint because they > > perform the same actions, which is fine. Could it be less confusing > > to remove completely the "shutdown" variable instead and replace those > > checks with "flags"? What the patch is doing is one step in this > > direction. > > I looked into removing the "shutdown" variable in favor of using > "flags" everywhere, but the patch was quite messy and repetitive. I > think another way to make things less confusing is to replace > "shutdown" with an inverse variable called "online." The attached > patch does it this way.
I find that change doesn't work. As Michael said the "shutdown" is implies "shutdown checkpoint". And end-of-recovery checkpoint is done online (means "not-shutdowning"). shutdown_checkpoint works for me. Renaming "shutdown checkpoint" as "exclusive checkpoint" or so also works for me but I think it would cause halation (or zealous objections).. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
