| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Justin Pryzby' <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: please update ps display for recovery checkpoint |
| Date: | 2020-08-20 08:09:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20200820080905.GA10353@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:20:50AM +0000, k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:53 AM (GMT+9), Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> During crash recovery, the server writes this to log:
>> Please change to say "recovery checkpoint" or similar, as I mentioned here.
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200118201111.GP26045@telsasoft.c
>> om
>
> Yes, I agree that it is helpful to tell users about that.
That could be helpful. Wouldn't it be better to use "end-of-recovery
checkpoint" instead? That's the common wording in the code comments.
I don't see the point of patch 0002. In the same paragraph, we
already know that this applies to any checkpoints.
> About 0003 patch, there are similar phrases in bgwriter_flush_after and
> backend_flush_after. Should those be updated too?
Yep, makes sense.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-08-20 08:10:45 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-08-20 08:07:57 | Re: [PG13] Planning (time + buffers) data structure in explain plan (format text) |