>> If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more,
>> since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the
>> former is printed every 10000 lines while the latter is every 5
>> seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think?
>
> AFAIK the "5 second" logging is much quieter in most cases (and a bit
> more verbose when the initialization gets very slower), so I think the
> "quiet" logging is not a bad match although maybe there's a better name.
>
> This change (adding the elapsed/remaining fields to the original loggin)
> would be consistent with this name, because considering a single line,
> the "-q" is more verbose right now.
>
> So I'd stick with the "-q" option and added the fields to the original
> logging. But I'm not opposing a different name, I just can't think of a
> better one.
Ok, I'm with you ("-q" and along with adding the elapsed/remaining
fields to the original logging).
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
