> Thanks. Can you please have a look at what I suggested down toward the
> bottom of http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaP2wEFSktmCgwT9LXuz7Y99HNdUYshpk7qNFuQB98g6g@mail.gmail.com
?
Implemented the above approach and verified the patch. Kindly have a
look and share your thoughts.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin Jadhav
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 10:40 AM Nitin Jadhav
<nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. Can you please have a look at what I suggested down toward the
> > bottom of http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaP2wEFSktmCgwT9LXuz7Y99HNdUYshpk7qNFuQB98g6g@mail.gmail.com
> > ?
> >
> > If we're going to go the route of combining the functions, I agree
> > that a Boolean is the way to go; I think we have some existing
> > precedent for 'bool finished' rather than 'bool done'.
> >
> > But I kind of wonder if we should have an enum in the first place. It
> > feels like we've got code in a bunch of places that just exists to
> > decide which enum value to use, and then code someplace else that
> > turns around and decides which message to produce. That would be
> > sensible if we were using the same enum values in lots of places, but
> > that's not the case here. So suppose we just moved the messages to the
> > places where we're now calling LogStartupProgress() or
> > LogStartupProgressComplete()? So something like this:
>
> Sorry. I thought it is related to the discussion of deciding whether
> LogStartupProgress() and LogStartupProgressComplete() should be
> combined or not. I feel it's a really nice design. With this we avoid
> a "action at a distance" issue and its easy to use. If we are
> reporting the same kind of msgs at multiple places then the current
> approach of using enum will be more suitable since we don't have to
> worry about matching the log msg string. But in the current scenario,
> we are not using the same kind of msgs at multiple places (I feel such
> scenario will not occur in future also. Even if there is similar
> operation, it can be distinguished like resetting unlogged relations
> is distinguished by init and clean. Kindly mention if you can oversee
> any such scenario), hence the approach you are suggesting will be a
> best suit.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Nitin Jadhav
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:48 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 4:56 AM Nitin Jadhav
> > <nitinjadhavpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for sharing the information. I have done the necessary changes
> > > to show the logs during the latter case (postgres --single) and
> > > verified the log messages.
> >
> > Thanks. Can you please have a look at what I suggested down toward the
> > bottom of http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaP2wEFSktmCgwT9LXuz7Y99HNdUYshpk7qNFuQB98g6g@mail.gmail.com
> > ?
> >
> > --
> > Robert Haas
> > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
