On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:41 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 12/21/16 4:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Working on committing this (tomorrow morning, not tonight). There's >> some relatively minor things I want to change:
Thanks for looking at this patch. >> - I don't like the name XLogSetFlags() - it's completely unclear what >> that those flags refer to - it could just as well be replay >> related. XLogSetRecordFlags()? > > That sounds a bit more clear. Fine for me. >> - Similarly I don't like the name "progress LSN" much. What does >> "progress" really mean in that". Maybe "consistency LSN"? > > Yes, please. I think that really cuts to the core of what the patch is > about. Progress made perfect sense to me, but consistency is always the > goal, and what we are saying here is that this is the last xlog record that > is required to achieve consistency. Anything that happens to be after it is > informational only. Fine as well. >> - It's currently required to avoid triggering archive timeouts and >> checkpoints triggering each other, but I'm nervous marking all xlog >> switches as unimportant. I think it'd be better to only mark timeout >> triggered switches as such. > > That seems fine to me. If the system is truly idle that might trigger one > more xlog switch that is needed, but it seems like a reasonable compromise. On a long-running embedded system the difference won't matter much. So I guess I'm fine with this bit as well. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
