On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm a bit afraid that it will confuse DBA if we use
>>> "restored" under the pg_xlog replay context, because we have
>>> already used "restored" that means a WAL file as successfully
>>> "copied" (not "replayed") from archive directory into pg_xlog
>>> directory under the archive recovery context.
>>>
>>> So, to determine the status of copying WAL files from
>>> archive directory, I think we can use "restored", or
>>> "could not restore" on failure.
>>>
>>> And to determine the status of replaying WAL files
>>> in pg_xlog directory (even if a WAL is copied from archive),
>>> we have to use "recover" or "replay".
>>
>> Agreed. I can change "restored" to "using", so we have two message types
>>
>> LOG: restored log file "000000080000000000000047" from archive
>> LOG: using pre-existing log file "000000080000000000000047" from pg_xlog
>
> using seems pretty fuzzy to me. replaying?
That was my first thought, but the message relates to which file has
been selected, and how. Once it has been selected it will be replayed.
The idea is to have the two messages look similar.
The original message was "restored log file..." and says nothing about
replaying.
We could change the old message (ugh! backwards compatibility alert)
LOG: replaying log file "000000080000000000000047" after restore from archiveLOG: replaying log file
"000000080000000000000047"already in pg_xlog
which doesn't sound much stronger to me... not sure.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
