Re: Reporting WAL file containing checkpoint's REDO record in pg_controldata's result

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> s/segment/file/g?
>
>>> We're already using "file" to mean something different *internally*,
>>> don't we? And since pg_controldata shows fairly internal information,
>>> I'm not sure this is the best idea.
>>>
>>> Maybe compromise and call it "segment file" - that is both easier to
>>> understand than segment, and not actually using a term that means
>>> something else...
>
>> It's also kind of wordy.  I think "file" is fine.
>
> +1 for "file".  I think the internal usage of "file" to mean "roughly
> 4GB worth of WAL" is going to go away soon anyway, as there won't be
> much reason to worry about the concept once LSN arithmetic is 64-bit.

Agreed. This would mean that the following lots of log messages need to
be changed after 64-bit LSN will have been committed.

errmsg("could not fdatasync log file %u, segment %u: %m",
log, seg)));

Anyway, should I add this patch into the next CF? Or is anyone planning
to commit the patch for 9.2?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center