At Thu, 3 Mar 2022 10:27:10 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:39:37AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Wed, 2 Mar 2022 18:18:10 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote in > >> I don't think that's useful. Being in LogCheckpointStart > >> (CreateCheckPoint or CreateRestartPoint) itself means that somebody > >> has requested a checkpoint. Having CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED doesn't add > >> any value. > > > > Agreed. > > Exactly my impression. This would apply now to the WAL shutdown code > paths, and I'd suspect that the callers of CreateCheckPoint() are not > going to increase soon. The point is: the logs already provide some > contexts for any of those callers so I see no need for this additional > information. > > > Actually no one does but RequestCheckpoint() accepts 0 as flags. > > Checkpointer would be a bit more complex without CHECKPOINT_REQUESTED. > > I don't think it does us any good to get rid of the flag value. > > I'd rather keep this code as-is.
I fail to identify the nuance of the phrase, so just for a clarification. In short, I think we should keep the exiting code as-is. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
