Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
Date: 2017-02-26 20:32:30
Message-ID: CABUevEzxrh0tFeUof=S-AL2t5aNVAqbL2jpaSwpMGSXazgV1sQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand,
> > > you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron job
> > > you're going to notice lack of switch even before you let the job run
> > > once.
> >
> > Well, that might've been a better way to design it, but changing it
> > now would break backward compatibility and I'm not really sure that's
> > a good idea. Even if it is, it's a separate concern from whether or
> > not in the less-quiet mode we should point out that we're waiting for
> > a checkpoint on the server side.
>
> ISTM the consensus is that there should be no output in regular mode,
> but a message should be displayed in verbose and progress mode.
>
> So I went forth and also added a message in progress mode (unless
> verbose messages are requested anyway).
>
> Regarding the documentation, I tried to clarify the difference between
> the checkpoint types a bit more, but I think any further action is
> probably a larger rewrite of the documentation on this topic.
>
> So attached are two patches, I've split it up in the documentation and
> the code output part. I'll add it as one commitfest entry in the
> "Clients" section though, as it's not really a big patch, unless
> somebody thinks it should have a secon entry in "Documentation"?

Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I noticed you also fixed a couple
of entries which were missing the progname in the messages -- I broke those
out to a separate patch instead.

Made a small change to "using as much I/O as available" rather than "as
possible", which I think is a better wording, along with the change of the
idle wording I suggested before. (but feel free to point it out to me if
that's wrong).

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2017-02-26 20:53:46 Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-02-26 20:26:17 Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums