Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: set_ps_display during recovery

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: set_ps_display during recovery
Date: 2007-09-30 15:58:52
Message-ID: 1191167932.4174.131.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"?
> 
> > Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
> 
> > IMHO wording should be
> >   "restoring  X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
> >   "recovering X" once we have the file (archive or not)
> 
> Those two words seem close enough in meaning that most admins wouldn't
> be clear on the difference.  

OK, I see that.

> I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for
> the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases
> where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably
> because you are physically getting the file from someplace else.
> In the specific context of a warm standby machine, "waiting for" would
> be the bon mot, but that would probably be inappropriate for other
> contexts.

"Waiting for" sounds best I think. It might be waiting for a manual tape
mount for example, not just a warm standby. If the wait isn't very long
it won't hardly notice anyway.

> As for the second-phase activity, "recovering" is fine, or maybe
> "processing"?

Yes, Recovering is fine.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-09-30 17:17:19
Subject: Re: set_ps_display during recovery
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-09-30 15:16:15
Subject: Re: set_ps_display during recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group