Re: pg_upgrade's object listing
> On 27 Oct 2023, at 10:44, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I honestly doubt that this sort of message is in any way useful, other > than for program debugging. Maybe listing databases and perhaps slots > in verbose mode is OK, but tables? I don't think so. Outputting this in verbose mode is unlikely to help in regular usage and instead risk drown out other outputs. It would be more useful to be able to specify a logfile for objects and keep verbose output for more informational and actionable messages. -- Daniel Gustafsson
Re: pg_upgrade's object listing
Hi, On 2023-Oct-27, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade: > > > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", > > two_phase: %s", > >slot_info->slotname, > >slot_info->plugin, > >slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false"); > > If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label > ought to be "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including > those adjucent, should have a more natural spelling. > > What do you think about this? I think this shouldn't be a translatable message in the first place. Looking at the wording of other messages in pg_upgrade --verbose,it doesn't look like any of it is intended for user consumption. I mean, look at this monstrosity pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: \"%s\"", Before 249d74394500 it used to be even more hideous. This message comes straight from the initial pg_upgrade commit in 2010, c2e9b2f28818, where it was a debug message. We seem to have promoted it to a verbose message (commit 717f6d60859c) for no particular reason and without careful consideration. I honestly doubt that this sort of message is in any way useful, other than for program debugging. Maybe listing databases and perhaps slots in verbose mode is OK, but tables? I don't think so. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "I'm impressed how quickly you are fixing this obscure issue. I came from MS SQL and it would be hard for me to put into words how much of a better job you all are doing on [PostgreSQL]." Steve Midgley, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-08/msg0.php
Re: pg_upgrade's object listing
At Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:56:31 +, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" wrote in > On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade: > > > > > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", > > two_phase: %s", > > > slot_info->slotname, > > > slot_info->plugin, > > > slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false"); > > > > If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought > > to be > > "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, > > should have a > > more natural spelling. > > > > What do you think about this? > > Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will > be an > improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as > struct > field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks > OK to me. > > [1] > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: > \"%s\"", >rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname, >rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname, >rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid, >rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace); Thanks for sharing your perspectie. I share similar sentiments. The initial question arose during the message translation. For the subsequent one, I opted not to translate the labels as they looked to be member names. From this viewpoint, "slot_name" is rather ambiguous. If there's no interest in modifying it, I will retain the original labels in translated messages, and that should suffice. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
RE: pg_upgrade's object listing
On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Hello. > > I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade: > > > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", > two_phase: %s", > >slot_info->slotname, > >slot_info->plugin, > >slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false"); > > If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought to > be > "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, should > have a > more natural spelling. > > What do you think about this? Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will be an improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as struct field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks OK to me. [1] pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: \"%s\"", rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname, rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname, rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid, rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace); Best Regards, Hou zj
pg_upgrade's object listing
Hello. I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade: > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", > two_phase: %s", > slot_info->slotname, > slot_info->plugin, > slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false"); If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought to be "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, should have a more natural spelling. What do you think about this? regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
