On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 17:53 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> I haven't implemented a WAIT option yet since I didn't want to decide
> that without more votes in either direction.
I had a look at it, and I have suggestions for the documentation.
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml
> +++ b/doc/sr
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 05:53:15PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Ack, done in v4.
Thanks! The overall shape of these patches looks pretty good to me. I'll
aim to give them a deeper review in the near future.
--
nathan
Re: Nathan Bossart
> IMO we should try to make the terminology consistent everywhere. I'd
> suggest putting the renaming stuff in separate prerequisite patches for
> your new CHECKPOINT option.
Ack, done in v4.
I haven't implemented a WAIT option yet since I didn't want to decide
that without mo
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 03:45:46PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Do we want to change the checkpoint log message (and the new options)
> only, or include the CHECKPOINT_* flags? (I would guess there aren't
> many external users of these flags, but mmmv.)
IMO we should try to make the terminology
Re: Nathan Bossart
> That seems like a good idea to me. I'm tempted to say that "fast" more
> accurately describes what's happening than "immediate." "Immediate" sounds
> like it happens instantaneously, but it's actually just happening "fast,"
> i.e., as fast as possible.
Ack.
> > #define CHEC
On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 06:20:21PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Nathan Bossart
>> I don't understand why we need to add both FAST and IMMEDIATE.
>
> We have both:
>
> =# checkpoint ;
> 2025-06-06 18:09:25.743 CEST [872379] LOG: checkpoint starting: immediate
> force wait
>
> pg_basebacku
Re: Nathan Bossart
> I imagine the documentation will pretty clearly indicate that setting WAIT
> to "false" will cause CHECKPOINT to not wait for it to finish.
I can add it, it's easy enough...
> I don't understand why we need to add both FAST and IMMEDIATE.
We have both:
=# checkpoint ;
2025-
On Fri, Jun 06, 2025 at 04:26:56PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Fujii Masao
>> Some users might want to trigger a spread checkpoint but not wait for
>> it to finish, since it could take a long time? If that's a valid use case,
>> maybe we should add a WAIT option to let users choose whether t
Re: Fujii Masao
> utility.c:946:4: warning: label followed by a declaration is a C23 extension
> [-Wc23-extensions]
Thanks, my compiler didn't throw that. { } block added in v3.
> RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_WAIT |
> +
On 2025/06/06 19:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Andres Freund
I'd add a 'mode' that can be set to an arbitrary string, which then can be
validated in C code. That seems more future proof.
Changed in the attached v2, thanks.
When I applied the patch and compiled it, I got the following warn
Re: Andres Freund
> I'd add a 'mode' that can be set to an arbitrary string, which then can be
> validated in C code. That seems more future proof.
Changed in the attached v2, thanks.
Christoph
>From c8975cbd1dbe5e5cae18414ea27bc3f2c0e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christoph Berg
Date: Fri
Re: Andres Freund
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-05-30 18:17:45 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
> > shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
> > CHECKPOINT optionally also write out unlogged table data for that
> > purp
Re: Nathan Bossart
> This patch also adds an IMMEDIATE option, which I proposed some time ago
> [0]. I ended up withdrawing it due to general skepticism about its
Thanks for the pointer, I did not go that far back when looking for
older threads.
When writing the patch, I was also thinking about
On 2025-05-30 19:23:04 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Nathan Bossart
> > This patch also adds an IMMEDIATE option, which I proposed some time ago
> > [0]. I ended up withdrawing it due to general skepticism about its
>
> Thanks for the pointer, I did not go that far back when looking for
> ol
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 12:39:02PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-05-30 18:17:45 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
>> shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
>> CHECKPOINT optionally also write out unlo
Hi,
On May 30, 2025 12:55:28 PM EDT, Christoph Berg wrote:
>Re: Andres Freund
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2025-05-30 18:17:45 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> > A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
>> > shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
>> > CHECK
Hi,
On 2025-05-30 18:17:45 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
> shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
> CHECKPOINT optionally also write out unlogged table data for that
> purpose. I think the idea makes sens
A customer reported to use CHECKPOINT before shutdowns to make the
shutdowns themselves faster and asked if it was possible to make
CHECKPOINT optionally also write out unlogged table data for that
purpose. I think the idea makes sense, so there's the patch.
Christoph
>From 1d7d7b7fab78312f5423dff
18 matches
Mail list logo
