On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 03:52:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:09:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > That could be helpful. Wouldn't it be better to use "end-of-recovery
> > checkpoint" instead? That's the common wording in the code comments.
> >
> > I don't see the point of patch 0002. In the same paragraph, we
> > already know that this applies to any checkpoints.
>
> Thinking more about this.. Could it be better to just add some calls
> to set_ps_display() directly in CreateCheckPoint()? This way, both
> the checkpointer as well as the startup process at the end of recovery
> would benefit from the change.
What would you want the checkpointer's ps to say ?
Normally it just says:
postgres 3468 3151 0 Aug27 ? 00:20:57 postgres: checkpointer
Or do you mean do the same thing as now, but one layer lower, like:
@@ -8728,6 +8725,9 @@ CreateCheckPoint(int flags)
+ if (flags & CHECKPOINT_END_OF_RECOVERY)
+ set_ps_display("recovery checkpoint");
--
Justin
