Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEyAHBmsnkUOLDGLfAqL7Utn2v6v-cCaRmnATjwq3LcvPg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting forcheckpoint (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting forcheckpoint
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
-- On 2/11/17 4:36 AM, Michael Banck wrote:I guess you're right, I've moved it further down. There is in fact a
message about the xlog location (unless you switch off wal entirely),
but having another one right before that mentioning the completed
checkpoint sounds ok to me.
1) I don't think this should be verbose output. Having a program sit there "doing nothing" for no apparent reason is just horrible UI design.
That would include much of Unix then.. For example if I run "cp" on a large file it sits around "doing nothing". Same if I do "tar". No?
2) I think it'd be useful to have a way to get the status of a running checkpoint. The checkpointer already has that info, and I think it might even be in shared memory already. If there was a function that reported checkpoint status pg_basebackup could poll that to provide users with live status. That should be a separate patch though.
I agree that this would definitely be useful. But it might be something that's better exposed as a server-side view?
(and if pg_basebackup could poll it it would probably still not be included by default -- only if -P was given).
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: