On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 20 May 2013 20:06, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > >>> It would be possible to redesign this with a special new reason, or we >>> could just use "time" as the reason, or we could just leave it. >>> >>> Do nothing is easy, though so are the others, so we can choose >>> anything we want. What do we want it to say? >> >> >> I'm not sure. Perhaps we should print "(no flags)", so that it wouldn't look >> like there's something missing in the log message. > > The reason text would still be absent, so it wouldn't really help the > user interpret the log message correctly. > > I suggest we use RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_TIME) instead, > since it is literally time for a checkpoint.
Or, what about using CHECKPOINT_FORCE and just printing "force"? Currently that checkpoint always starts because of existence of the end-of-recovery record, but I think we should ensure that the checkpoint always starts by using that flag. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
