Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)
Date: 2021-09-27 15:49:59
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaTks7K7vafafVEWY1iHY4RB=3ztHSPDiNWoZ4LFebjNw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 7:26 AM Nitin Jadhav
<nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I really don't know what to say about this. You say that the time is
> > measured in milliseconds, and then immediately turn around and say
> > "For example, if you set it to 10s". Now we do expect that most people
> > will set it to intervals that are measured in seconds rather than
> > milliseconds, but saying that setting it to a value measured in
> > seconds is an example of setting it in milliseconds is not logical.
>
> Based on the statement "I suggest making the GUC GUC_UNIT_MS rather
> than GUC_UNIT_S, but expressing the default in postgresl.conf.sample
> as 10s rather than 10000ms", I have used the default value in the
> postgresl.conf.sample as 10s rather than 10000ms. So I just used the
> same value in the example too in config.sgml. If it is really getting
> confusing, I will change it to 100ms in config.sgml.

That's really not what I'm complaining about. I think if we're going
to give an example at all, 10ms is a better example than 100ms,
because 10s is a value that people are more likely to find useful. But
I'm not sure that it's necessary to mention a specific value, and if
it is, I think it needs to be phrased in a less confusing way.

> Made changes which indicate 0 mean disabled, > 0 mean interval in
> millisecond and removed -1.

Well, I see that -1 is now disallowed, and that's good as far as it
goes, but 0 still does not actually disable the feature. I don't
understand why you posted the previous version of the patch without
testing that it works, and I even less understand why you are posting
another version without fixing the bug that I pointed out to you in
the last version.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Drouvot, Bertrand 2021-09-27 15:52:25 [BUG] failed assertion in EnsurePortalSnapshotExists()
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2021-09-27 14:15:08 Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs