Horton

Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>

View thread
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-06-06T10:31:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add FLUSH_UNLOGGED option to CHECKPOINT command.

  2. Add MODE option to CHECKPOINT command.

  3. Add option list to CHECKPOINT command.

  4. Rename CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_ALL to CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_UNLOGGED.

  5. Rename CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE to CHECKPOINT_FAST.


On 2025/06/06 19:03, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andres Freund
>> I'd add a 'mode' that can be set to an arbitrary string, which then can be
>> validated in C code. That seems more future proof.
> 
> Changed in the attached v2, thanks.

When I applied the patch and compiled it, I got the following warnings:

utility.c:946:4: warning: label followed by a declaration is a C23 extension [-Wc23-extensions]
   946 |                         CheckPointStmt   *stmt = (CheckPointStmt *) parsetree;
       |                         ^
utility.c:947:16: warning: mixing declarations and code is incompatible with standards before C99 [-Wdeclaration-after-statement]
   947 |                         ListCell   *lc;
       |                                     ^
2 warnings generated.


			RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_WAIT |
+							  (immediate ? CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE : 0) |
+							  (flush_all ? CHECKPOINT_FLUSH_ALL : 0) |

Some users might want to trigger a spread checkpoint but not wait for
it to finish, since it could take a long time? If that's a valid use case,
maybe we should add a WAIT option to let users choose whether to wait for
the checkpoint to complete or not?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation