On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas: >>> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera >>> > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> > > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by >>> hand, >>> > > you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron job >>> > > you're going to notice lack of switch even before you let the job run >>> > > once. >>> > >>> > Well, that might've been a better way to design it, but changing it >>> > now would break backward compatibility and I'm not really sure that's >>> > a good idea. Even if it is, it's a separate concern from whether or >>> > not in the less-quiet mode we should point out that we're waiting for >>> > a checkpoint on the server side. >>> >>> ISTM the consensus is that there should be no output in regular mode, >>> but a message should be displayed in verbose and progress mode. >>> >>> So I went forth and also added a message in progress mode (unless >>> verbose messages are requested anyway). >>> >>> Regarding the documentation, I tried to clarify the difference between >>> the checkpoint types a bit more, but I think any further action is >>> probably a larger rewrite of the documentation on this topic. >>> >>> So attached are two patches, I've split it up in the documentation and >>> the code output part. I'll add it as one commitfest entry in the >>> "Clients" section though, as it's not really a big patch, unless >>> somebody thinks it should have a secon entry in "Documentation"? >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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). >> > > Should the below fprintf end in a \r rather than a \n, so that the the > progress message gets over-written once the checkpoint is done and we have > moved on? > > if (showprogress && !verbose) > fprintf(stderr, "waiting for checkpoint\n"); > > That would seem more in keeping with how the other progress messages > operate. > > Agreed, that makes more sense. I've pushed a patch that does this. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
