At Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:03:14 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:18 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > FWIW, by the way, I complained that the variable name "promoted" is a > > bit confusing. It's old name was fast_promoted, which means that fast > > promotion is being *requsted* and ongoing. On the other hand the > > current name "promoted" still means "(fast=non-fallback) promotion is > > ongoing" so there was a conversation as the follows. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9fdd994d-a531-a52b-7906-e1cc22701310%40oss.nttdata.com > > I agree - that variable name is also not great. I am open to making > improvements in that area and in others that have been suggested on > this thread, but my immediate goal is to figure out whether anyone > objects to me committing the posted patch. If nobody comes up with a > reason why it's a bad idea in the next few days, I'll plan to move > ahead with it.
That's fine with me. I still haven't find a way to lose the last checkpoint due to software failure. Repeated promotion without having new checkpoints is safe as expected. We don't remove WAL files unless a checkpoint completes, and a checkpoint preserves segments back to the one containing its redo point. In short, I'm for it. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
