Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRz5u-001in6-5q for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:09:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRz5s-004Ue2-8j for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:09:12 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uRz5r-004UXn-VS for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:09:12 +0000 Received: from mout-p-102.mailbox.org ([2001:67c:2050:0:465::102]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uRz5q-002kTF-1M for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:09:11 +0000 Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [10.196.197.102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-102.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bMvvg5HlQz9smH; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:09:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:09:01 +0200 From: Christoph Berg To: Nathan Bossart Cc: Laurenz Albe , Fujii Masao , Andres Freund , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: CHECKPOINT unlogged data Message-ID: References: <086ab9ad5a2c06eb16f6f4e50a04764ba6fafd1b.camel@cybertec.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Re: Nathan Bossart > I broke this up into several small patches. Notable changes are as > follows: > > * Adjusted to the tab completion code to work more like the VACUUM utility > options. > > * Introduced a new ExecCheckpoint() function in checkpointer.c and moved > the privilege check and options parsing there. Ack. I was pondering if the code was growing too big there, but didn't want to change too many things at once. > * Removed the notes in the docs about when to use the CHECKPOINT command. > I'm not opposed to adding something like that (in fact, I think it's a > good idea), but IMHO we should bikeshed on that separately, maybe even in > a new thread. I would have thought this already happened here. > Thoughts? Fine with me, thanks! Christoph