Message-ID: <a7841fc0ce1ac04fe303f0abe4e7db23dca89172.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Michael Paquier
 <michael@paquier.xyz>,  Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Danil Anisimow <anisimow.d@gmail.com>, Andres Freund
 <andres@anarazel.de>,  PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 08:36:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <3f732849-0f60-4a64-be84-ee41e239d560@iki.fi>
References: <0892cd00635c8bcd458de6d43d31cf61953da1b2.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CABm2Ma5Hi9PU_wWP0f=YFu9aDDdeSdX2+JFDL_oDH-QHgexsgg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <727b0f3b48aec2a4f968bf11c6fa8ca6382b6cca.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CABm2Ma6avU5hkk7dd+G2oRNJZJtLOT=Yzeq6fb0v2rf7_YYp7g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <beb9c43d6492ffc273d236e4b93270dfad035f2f.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CABm2Ma5Ww9M8DgFTCcASnMiPPVYU8cd_wGhHZ5YnoK5im6wT2g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <22e756affaad88b77a52d67cb532ed2a544f2e36.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CA+TgmoZxvVXx809WhOcLNbUgAYYiLY+Y-o_gDpay6uTLwaJVyA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1e2256b744836aeb485c61954e9d8272f80141a0.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CA+TgmoZS++BBdyWxFv6k-UhzX=MGsqd8mu_80Z646-T=jYgW2g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ZlTPBEbxhshxn9WC@paquier.xyz>
	 <3f732849-0f60-4a64-be84-ee41e239d560@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a7841fc0ce1ac04fe303f0abe4e7db23dca89172.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 16:21 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> So, I got a feeling that adding this to the rmgr interface is not
> quite=20
> right. The rmgr callbacks are for things that run when WAL is=20
> *replayed*, while checkpoints are related to how WAL is generated.
> Let's=20
> design this as an independent hook, separate from rmgrs.

That's a good way to look at it, agreed.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis