From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: please update ps display for recovery checkpoint |
Date: | 2020-12-03 21:58:09 |
Message-ID: | 20201203215809.GS24052@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I considered also checking that update_process_title was enabled, but
> I figured that these ps display updates should happen sparsely enough
> that it wouldn't make much of an impact.
Since bf68b79e5, update_ps_display is responsible for checking
update_process_title. Its other, remaining uses are apparently just acting as
minor optimizations to guard against useless snprintf's.
See also https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1288021.1600178478%40sss.pgh.pa.us
in which (I just saw) Tom wrote:
> Seems like a good argument, but you'd have to be careful about the
> final state when you stop overriding update_process_title --- it can't
> be left looking like it's still-in-progress on some random WAL file.
I think that's a live problem, not just a concern for that patch.
It was exactly my complaint leading to this thread:
> But runs a checkpoint, which can take a long time, while the "ps" display still
> says "recovering NNNNNNNN".
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-12-03 21:58:39 | Re: scram-sha-256 broken with FIPS and OpenSSL 1.0.2 |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-12-03 21:44:21 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |