Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Euler Taveira <eu...@timbira.com.br>
> >> wrote:
> >> > While updating translations, I came across those almost similar
> >> > sentences.
> >> >
> >> > pg_controldata.c
> >> >
> >> > 273 printf(_("Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTs: %u\n"),
> >> > 274 ControlFile.checkPointCopy.oldestCommitTs);
> >> >
> >> > pg_resetxlog.c
> >> >
> >> > 668 printf(_("Latest checkpoint's oldest CommitTs: %u\n"),
> >> > 669 ControlFile.checkPointCopy.oldestCommitTs);
> >> > 670 printf(_("Latest checkpoint's newest CommitTs: %u\n"),
> >> > 671 ControlFile.checkPointCopy.newestCommitTs);
> >> >
> >> > To be consistent, let's change pg_resetxlog to mimic pg_controldata
> >> > sentence. Patch is attached. It is new in 9.5 so backpatch is needed.
> >>
> >> Seems like a good idea to me. Anyone disagree?
> >
> > OK with me.
>
> +1
>
> One relevant question is; why doesn't pg_controldata report newestCommitTs?
Most likely an oversight. As I recall, we added newestCommitTs in a
later version of the patch; we probably patched pg_controldata earlier
and then failed to realize that we needed to add the new field.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
