On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 05:47:45PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I'm inclined to agree that anything that calls update_controlfile() > should update the timestamp.
pg_control.h tells that:
pg_time_t time; /* time stamp of last pg_control update */
So, yes, that would be more consistent.
> However, I wonder if the additional
> calls to time() would have a noticeable impact.
I would not take that lightly either. Now, I don't think that any of
the code paths where UpdateControlFile() or update_controlfile() is
called are hot enough to worry about that.
UpdateControlFile(void)
{
+ ControlFile->time = (pg_time_t) time(NULL);
update_controlfile(DataDir, ControlFile, true);
}
I have to admit that it is a bit strange to do that in the backend but
not the frontend, so there is a good argument for doing that directly
in update_controlfile(). pg_resetwal does an update of the time, but
pg_rewind does not.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
