Re: pg_amcheck contrib application

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Date: 2021-03-12 19:24:01
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYsOuV48S1b7t4EB4acyGnOjqL1iv4jqoCSe=KdyfXxzw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:05 PM <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> I think there is a formatting glitch in lines like:
>
> 2/4 relations (50%) 187977/187978 pages (99%), (testdb )
>
> I suppose that last part should show up trimmed as '(testdb)', right?

Actually I think this is intentional. The idea is that as the line is
rewritten we don't want the close-paren to move around. It's the same
thing pg_basebackup does with its progress reporting.

Now that is not to say that some other behavior might not be better,
just that Mark was copying something that already exists, probably
because he knows that I'm finnicky about consistency....

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-03-12 19:31:36 Re: pg_amcheck contrib application
Previous Message Joe Conway 2021-03-12 19:13:44 Re: documentation fix for SET ROLE