Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, den 26.02.2017, 21:32 +0100 schrieb Magnus Hagander:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck
> > <michael.banck@credativ.de> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > 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).
>
> LGTM, I apparently missed your suggestion when I re-read the thread.
>
> I am just wondering whether this could/should be back-patched, maybe? It
> is not a bug fix, of course, but OTOH is rather small and probably
> helpful to some users on current releases.
>
>
Good point. We should definitely back-patch the documentation updates.

Not 100% sure about the others, as it's a small behaviour change. But since
it's only in verbose mode, I doubt it is very likely to break anybodys
scripts relying on certain output or so.

What do others think?

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