Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqG3OhyJtXbXfXtdZhSSaCZhqtBR1TK4wp2O9yVH3YamFQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 18:25 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:15 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2020年2月5日(水) 17:54 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > I'm not sure, but doesn't that mean "waiting for a checkpoint to
>> > start"?  Sorry in advance if that is not the case.
>>
>> No, I really meant "to finish".  As Sawada-san said upthread, we
>> should really use text that describes the activity that usually takes
>> long.  While it takes takes only a moment to actually start the
>> checkpoint, it might take long for it to finish.
>
> I meant that the wording might sound as if it implies "to start", but..

Ah, I misunderstood then, sorry.

So, maybe you're saying that "waiting for checkpoint" is ambiguous and
most people will assume it means "...to start".  As for me, I assume
it ends with "...to finish".

>> As Fujii-san says
>> though we don't need the noise words "to finish".
>
> Understood, sorry for my noise.

Actually, that's an important point to consider and we should strive
to use words that are unambiguous.

Last two messages weren’t sent to the list.

Thanks,
Amit

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yugo NAGATA
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Complete data erasure