Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com
Cc: hamid.akhtar@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, masao.fujii@gmail.com
Date: 2020-06-03T03:06:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:43:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in 
> I will change the status back to Needs Review.

         record = ReadCheckpointRecord(xlogreader, checkPointLoc, 1, false);
         if (record != NULL)
         {
-          fast_promoted = true;
+          promoted = true;

Even if we missed the last checkpoint record, we don't give up
promotion and continue fall-back promotion but the variable "promoted"
stays false. That is confusiong.

How about changing it to fallback_promotion, or some names with more
behavior-specific name like immediate_checkpoint_needed?

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



Commits

  1. Remove non-fast promotion.