| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |
| Date: | 2010-02-25 01:58:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4B85D943.4080608@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
I though about that for a minute, but didn't think pg_stop_backup is a
common enough operation that anyone will complain that it's a little
more verbose in its logging now. I know when I was new to this, I used
to wonder just what it was busy doing just after executing this command
when it hung there for a while sometimes, and would have welcomed this
extra bit of detail--preferably immediately, not even after a 5 or 10
second delay.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-02-25 02:01:49 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-02-25 01:57:03 | Re: pg_stop_backup does not complete |