At Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:11:15 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:09:53PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote: > > This one has been quiet for a while. Should we mark it as > > returned-with-feedback? > > Yes, that's my feeling and I got cold feet about this change. This > patch would bring some extra visibility for something that's not > incorrect either on HEAD, as end-of-recovery checkpoints are the same > things as shutdown checkpoints. And there is an extra argument where > back-patching would become a bit more tricky in an area that's already > a lot sensitive.
That sounds like we should reject the patch as we don't agree to its objective. If someday end-of-recovery checkpoints functionally diverge from shutdown checkpoints but leave (somehow) the transition alone, we may visit this again but it would be another proposal. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
