public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
To: Nitin Jadhav <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 00:35:45 +0800
Message-ID: <20220225163545.slsxurx2wbpme7vg@jrouhaud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm1aWZPb5pGYLVXz5TkApbSERozmJd+n72jDMG=Pv5HVh_n4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm1aWbjzP9g9ebkYqqJvNAW4jh6wP0maKW2Ozcv8PLVu76cFA@mail.gmail.com>
<20220218074351.wgfosjt5lql2vjbr@jrouhaud>
<CAMm1aWadyUhb89DEfgrs2j5i2u--O06x6oTp0EEhgGHtnw-SXA@mail.gmail.com>
<20220219053215.r4wqatln5awklecf@jrouhaud>
<CAMm1aWZzPVpLs7k5sQU4DObvh6YpOhjibcq2ykDrC_n25jeJNA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMm1aWZ07VYUPpvmV9Ck_VX-o+xH=hEBs-67scd_Us6U6FKbHA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEze2WhXEU+n=o0UjQSx8sJ3Bf7Ru3NN+t5Jzrbt9pFfDrLy0A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMm1aWaL8S9AbeLQrSGNBW+d3165dmV=JnCfVyjo9UGKCz4vHg@mail.gmail.com>
<20220225070352.fhfwnl5ksfsa4eew@jrouhaud>
<CAMm1aWZPb5pGYLVXz5TkApbSERozmJd+n72jDMG=Pv5HVh_n4g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:53:50PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what Matthias meant, but as far as I know there's no fundamental
> > difference between checkpoint with and without the CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE flag,
> > and there's also no scheduling for multiple checkpoints.
> >
> > Yes, the flags will remain the same but checkpoint.c will test both the passed
> > flags and the shmem flags to see whether a delay should be added or not, which
> > is the only difference in checkpoint processing for this flag. See the call to
> > ImmediateCheckpointRequested() which will look at the value in shmem:
> >
> > /*
> > * Perform the usual duties and take a nap, unless we're behind schedule,
> > * in which case we just try to catch up as quickly as possible.
> > */
> > if (!(flags & CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE) &&
> > !ShutdownRequestPending &&
> > !ImmediateCheckpointRequested() &&
> > IsCheckpointOnSchedule(progress))
>
> I understand that the checkpointer considers flags as well as the
> shmem flags and if CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE flag is set, it affects the
> current checkpoint operation (No further delay) but does not change
> the current flag value. Should we display this change in the kind
> field of the view or not? Please share your thoughts.
I think the fields should be added. It's good to know that a checkpoint was
trigger due to normal activity and should be spreaded, and then something
upgraded it to an immediate checkpoint. If you're desperately waiting for the
end of a checkpoint for some reason and ask for an immediate checkpoint, you'll
certainly be happy to see that the checkpointer is aware of it.
But maybe I missed something in the code, so let's wait for Matthias input
about it.
view thread (74+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs)
In-Reply-To: <20220225163545.slsxurx2wbpme7vg@jrouhaud>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox