On 6.1.2013 10:35, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more,
>>> since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the
>>> former is printed every 10000 lines while the latter is every 5
>>> seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think?
>> AFAIK the "5 second" logging is much quieter in most cases (and a bit
>> more verbose when the initialization gets very slower), so I think the
>> "quiet" logging is not a bad match although maybe there's a better name.
>> This change (adding the elapsed/remaining fields to the original loggin)
>> would be consistent with this name, because considering a single line,
>> the "-q" is more verbose right now.
>> So I'd stick with the "-q" option and added the fields to the original
>> logging. But I'm not opposing a different name, I just can't think of a
>> better one.
> Ok, I'm with you ("-q" and along with adding the elapsed/remaining
> fields to the original logging).
Great, attached is a patch that does that.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2013-01-06 16:29:17|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Slow query: bitmap scan troubles|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-06 10:14:18|
|Subject: Re: question: foreign key constraints and AccessExclusive locks|