Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 23:46:49 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, jgdr@dalibo.com,
	sawada.mshk@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com,
	sk@zsrv.org, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Message-ID: <20200519034649.GA8356@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200519024357.GB11835@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-May-19, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > BTW while you're messing with checkpointer, I propose this patch to
> > simplify things.
> 
> It seems to me that this would have a benefit if we begin to have a
> code path in CreateCheckpoint() where where it makes sense to let the
> checkpointer know that no checkpoint has happened, and now we assume
> that a skipped checkpoint is a performed one.

Well, my first attempt at this was returning false in that case, until I
realized that it would break the scheduling algorithm.

> As that's not the case now, I would vote for keeping the code as-is.

The presented patch doesn't have any functional impact; it just writes
the same code in a more concise way.  Like you, I wouldn't change this
if we didn't have a reason to rewrite this section of code.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services