On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:52:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2/24/10 5:36 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> >> gsmith=# select pg_stop_backup();
> >> NOTICE: pg_stop_backup cleanup done, waiting for required segments to
> >> archive
> >> WARNING: pg_stop_backup still waiting for all required segments to
> >> archive (60 seconds elapsed)
> >> HINT: Confirm your archive_command is executing successfully.
> >> pg_stop_backup can be aborted safely, but the resulting backup will not
> >> be usable.
> >> ^CCancel request sent
> >> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
> > This looks really good, thanks!
> The one thing I'm undecided about is whether we want the immediate
> NOTICE, as opposed to dialing down the time till the first WARNING
> to something like 5 or 10 seconds. I think the main argument for
> the latter approach would be to avoid log-spam in normal operation.
> Although Greg is correct that a NOTICE wouldn't be logged at default
> log levels, lots of people don't use that default. Comments?
As I see it, the clarity concern trumps the log spam one.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-02-25 01:58:27|
|Subject: Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-25 01:52:28|
|Subject: Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |