Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

>
> 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).
>

Should the below fprintf end in a \r rather than a \n, so that the the
progress message gets over-written once the checkpoint is done and we have
moved on?

if (showprogress && !verbose)
fprintf(stderr, "waiting for checkpoint\n");

That would seem more in keeping with how the other progress messages
operate.

Cheers,

Jeff