| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "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" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: please update ps display for recovery checkpoint |
| Date: | 2020-12-12 00:41:25 |
| Message-ID: | B08B7934-A7DA-4A4E-BBFC-3505667F2B7E@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/11/20, 4:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 06:54:42PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> This approach seems reasonable to me. I've attached my take on it.
>
> + /* Reset the process title */
> + set_ps_display("");
> I would still recommend to avoid calling set_ps_display() if there is
> no need to so as we avoid useless system calls, so I think that this
> stuff had better use a common path for the set and reset logic.
>
> My counter-proposal is like the attached, with the set/reset part not
> reversed this time, and the code indented :p
Haha. LGTM.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-12 03:16:26 | Re: Rethinking plpgsql's assignment implementation |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-12-12 00:16:34 | Re: Allow CLUSTER, VACUUM FULL and REINDEX to change tablespace on the fly |