On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:32 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> At Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:29:54 +0900, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote in
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:36 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > > On 2020/02/04 10:34, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > I like:
> > >
> > > Thanks for reviewing the patch!
> > >
> > > > 1. initializing
> > > > 2-5 waiting for backup start checkpoint to finish
> > >
> > > Can we shorten this to "waiting for checkpoint"? IMO the simpler
> > > phase name is better and "to finish" sounds a bit redundant. Also
> > > in the description of pg_stat_progress_create_index, basically
> > > "waiting for xxx" is used.
> >
> > "waiting for checkpoint" works for me.
>
> 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. As Fujii-san says
though we don't need the noise words "to finish".
Thanks,
Amit
