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
