On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:57 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Does anyone actually read these?
>
> LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
> LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
> LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
> LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
> LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
> LOG: database system is ready
>
> Why not just:
>
> LOG: database system is ready
>
> If people are worried that the startup might take longer, then maybe add
>
> LOG: database system is starting
>
> before that.
>
> Comments?
I understand the thought, but don't think that is a good idea.
Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a
database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just
started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are
looking at. Debugging recovery is hard enough already, so please don't
remove this information.
Also, the startup signature would not be verbose enough to catch your
eye as you look through the log. If you want to change this, we should
have some additional eyecatcher text in there, e.g. ==============...
These lines don't have much meaning for me and could be DEBUG1:
> LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
> LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
> LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
