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

> Thanks. Can you please have a look at what I suggested down toward the
> bottom of http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaP2wEFSktmCgwT9LXuz7Y99HNdUYshpk7qNFuQB98g6g@mail.gmail.com
> ?
>
> If we're going to go the route of combining the functions, I agree
> that a Boolean is the way to go; I think we have some existing
> precedent for 'bool finished' rather than 'bool done'.
>
> But I kind of wonder if we should have an enum in the first place. It
> feels like we've got code in a bunch of places that just exists to
> decide which enum value to use, and then code someplace else that
> turns around and decides which message to produce. That would be
> sensible if we were using the same enum values in lots of places, but
> that's not the case here. So suppose we just moved the messages to the
> places where we're now calling LogStartupProgress() or
> LogStartupProgressComplete()? So something like this:

Sorry. I thought it is related to the discussion of deciding whether
LogStartupProgress() and LogStartupProgressComplete() should be
combined or not. I feel it's a really nice design. With this we avoid
a "action at a distance" issue and its easy to use. If we are
reporting the same kind of msgs at multiple places then the current
approach of using enum will be more suitable since we don't have to
worry about matching the log msg string. But in the current scenario,
we are not using the same kind of msgs at multiple places (I feel such
scenario will not occur in future also. Even if there is similar
operation, it can be distinguished like resetting unlogged relations
is distinguished by init and clean. Kindly mention if you can oversee
any such scenario), hence the approach you are suggesting will be a
best suit.

Thanks & Regards,
Nitin Jadhav

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:48 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:56 AM Nitin Jadhav
> <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks for sharing the information. I have done the necessary changes
> > to show the logs during the latter case (postgres --single) and
> > verified the log messages.
>
> Thanks. Can you please have a look at what I suggested down toward the
> bottom of http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaP2wEFSktmCgwT9LXuz7Y99HNdUYshpk7qNFuQB98g6g@mail.gmail.com
> ?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com