Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

On 2020/06/03 12:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the 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?


I like doEndOfRecoveryCkpt or something, but I have no strong opinion
about that flag naming. So I'm ok with immediate_checkpoint_needed
if others also like that, too.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION