On 2020/06/03 12:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:43:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>
wrote in
I will change the status back to Needs Review.
Thanks for the review!
record = ReadCheckpointRecord(xlogreader, checkPointLoc, 1, false);
if (record != NULL)
{
- fast_promoted = true;
+ promoted = true;
Even if we missed the last checkpoint record, we don't give up
promotion and continue fall-back promotion but the variable "promoted"
stays false. That is confusiong.
How about changing it to fallback_promotion, or some names with more
behavior-specific name like immediate_checkpoint_needed?
I like doEndOfRecoveryCkpt or something, but I have no strong opinion
about that flag naming. So I'm ok with immediate_checkpoint_needed
if others also like that, too.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
