On 2020-May-19, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > BTW while you're messing with checkpointer, I propose this patch to > > simplify things. > > It seems to me that this would have a benefit if we begin to have a > code path in CreateCheckpoint() where where it makes sense to let the > checkpointer know that no checkpoint has happened, and now we assume > that a skipped checkpoint is a performed one.
Well, my first attempt at this was returning false in that case, until I realized that it would break the scheduling algorithm. > As that's not the case now, I would vote for keeping the code as-is. The presented patch doesn't have any functional impact; it just writes the same code in a more concise way. Like you, I wouldn't change this if we didn't have a reason to rewrite this section of code. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
