On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 09:13:48PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Putting this into fd.c seems to assume that we can clobber "ps", which is fine
> when called by StartupXLOG(), but it's a public interface, so I'm not sure if
> it's okay to assume that's the only caller. Maybe it should check if
>
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 01:28:06PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:02 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I've seen a few functions cause lengthy startups, including
>> SyncDataDirectory() (for which I was grateful to see 61752afb),
>> StartupReorderBuffer(), and
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:02 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 6/6/21, 7:14 PM, "Justin Pryzby" wrote:
> > Now, I wonder whether the startup process should also include some detail
> > about
> > "syncing data dir". It's possible to strace the process to see what it's
> > doing, but most DBA would
On 6/6/21, 7:14 PM, "Justin Pryzby" wrote:
> Now, I wonder whether the startup process should also include some detail
> about
> "syncing data dir". It's possible to strace the process to see what it's
> doing, but most DBA would probably not know that, and it's helpful to know the
> status of
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:01:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:41:25AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > On 12/11/20, 4:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> >> My counter-proposal is like the attached, with the set/reset part not
> >> reversed this time, and the code
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 09:22:24PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I'm not sure, but we could consider backpatching something to clear the
> "recovering NNN" that's currently displayed during checkpoint, even though
> recovery of NNN has already completed. Possibly just calling
>
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:01:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:41:25AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> > On 12/11/20, 4:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> >> My counter-proposal is like the attached, with the set/reset part not
> >> reversed this time, and the code
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 12:41:25AM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 12/11/20, 4:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>> My counter-proposal is like the attached, with the set/reset part not
>> reversed this time, and the code indented :p
>
> Haha. LGTM.
Thanks. I have applied this one, then.
--
On 12/11/20, 4:00 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 06:54:42PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> This approach seems reasonable to me. I've attached my take on it.
>
> + /* Reset the process title */
> + set_ps_display("");
> I would still recommend to avoid
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 06:54:42PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> This approach seems reasonable to me. I've attached my take on it.
+ /* Reset the process title */
+ set_ps_display("");
I would still recommend to avoid calling set_ps_display() if there is
no need to so as we avoid
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:02:10PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Isn't the sense of "reset" inverted ?
It is ;p
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Isn't the sense of "reset" inverted ?
I think maybe you mean to do set_ps_display(""); in the "if reset".
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:54:22PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> +update_checkpoint_display(int flags, bool restartpoint, bool reset)
> +{
> + if (reset)
> + {
> + char
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 06:37:22PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> On 12/8/20, 10:16 PM, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>> Yeah, I'd rather leave out the part of the patch where we have the
>> checkpointer say "idle". So I still think that what v3 did upthread,
>> by just resetting the ps display in
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 02:00:44AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I agree it might be helpful to display something like
> "checkpointing" or "waiting for checkpoint" in PS title for the
> startup process.
Thanks.
> But, at least for me, it seems strange to display "idle" only for
> checkpointer.
On 2020/12/05 2:17, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
On 12/3/20, 1:19 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" wrote:
I like the idea behind this patch. I wrote a new version with a
couple of changes:
I missed an #include in this patch. Here's a new one with that fixed.
I agree it might be helpful to display
On 12/3/20, 1:58 PM, "Justin Pryzby" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I considered also checking that update_process_title was enabled, but
>> I figured that these ps display updates should happen sparsely enough
>> that it wouldn't make much of an
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I considered also checking that update_process_title was enabled, but
> I figured that these ps display updates should happen sparsely enough
> that it wouldn't make much of an impact.
Since bf68b79e5, update_ps_display is
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:28:14PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Related: I have always thought that this message meant "recovery will
> > complete
> > Real Soon", but I now understand it to mean "beginning the recovery
> > checkpoint,
> > which is flagged CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE" (and may take
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 11:00:31AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Maybe it's a bad idea if the checkpointer is continuously changing its
> display.
> I don't see the utility in it, since log_checkpoints does more than ps could
> ever do. I'm concerned that would break things for someone using
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:37:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 09:00:50PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > What would you want the checkpointer's ps to say ?
> >
> > Normally it just says:
> > postgres 3468 3151 0 Aug27 ?00:20:57 postgres: checkpointer
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 09:00:50PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> What would you want the checkpointer's ps to say ?
>
> Normally it just says:
> postgres 3468 3151 0 Aug27 ?00:20:57 postgres: checkpointer
>
Note that CreateCheckPoint() can also be
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 03:52:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:09:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > That could be helpful. Wouldn't it be better to use "end-of-recovery
> > checkpoint" instead? That's the common wording in the code comments.
> >
> > I don't
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:09:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That could be helpful. Wouldn't it be better to use "end-of-recovery
> checkpoint" instead? That's the common wording in the code comments.
>
> I don't see the point of patch 0002. In the same paragraph, we
> already know that
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:20:50AM +, k.jami...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:53 AM (GMT+9), Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> During crash recovery, the server writes this to log:
>> Please change to say "recovery checkpoint" or similar, as I mentioned here.
>>
On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:53 AM (GMT+9), Justin Pryzby wrote:
Hi,
All the patches apply, although when applying them the following appears:
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
> During crash recovery, the server writes this to log:
>
> < 2020-08-16
During crash recovery, the server writes this to log:
< 2020-08-16 08:46:08.601 -03 >LOG: redo done at 2299C/1EC6BA00
< 2020-08-16 08:46:08.877 -03 >LOG: checkpoint starting: end-of-recovery
immediate
But runs a checkpoint, which can take a long time, while the "ps" display still
says
26 matches
Mail list logo
