>>> 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).
>
> Great, attached is a patch that does that.
Committed. Thanks.
--
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
