On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Might it be a good idea to put it on it's own row instead of changing >>>>> the format of an existing row, in order not to break scripts and >>>>> programs that are parsing the previous output? >>>> >>>> Good idea! What row name should we use for the WAL file containing >>>> REDO record? "Latest checkpoint's REDO file"? >>> >>> Sounds good to me. I like the idea, too. The status quo is an >>> unnecessary nuisance, so this will be a nice usability improvement. >> >> Attached patch adds new row "Latest checkpoint's REDO WAL segment:" into >> the result of pg_controldata. I used the term "WAL segment" for the row name >> instead of "file" because "WAL segment" is used in another row "Bytes per WAL >> segment:". But better name? > > s/segment/file/g?
Yep, "file" might be more intuitive for a user than "segment". Attached is the "file" version of the patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
pg_controldata_walfilename_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
