Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>,
Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-02-26T20:32:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.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@2ndquadrant.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/
Commits
-
Back-patch checkpoint clarification docs and pg_basebackup updates
- bd34e7f19b40 9.4.12 landed
- 2843d5d657be 9.5.7 landed
- b88b929a7071 9.6.3 landed