Thread: [PATCH] Change "checkpoint starting" message to use "wal"
A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits. The attached patch fixes that. Christoph -- Senior Berater, Tel.: +49 2166 9901 187 credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080, USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209 Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible > bits. The attached patch fixes that. At the same time it would make sense to rename CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_XLOG? I would not risk back-patching such a change as that would be annoying for tools parsing logs like pgbadger. -- Michael
Attachment
Re: Michael Paquier 2018-11-29 <20181129085902.GD9004@paquier.xyz> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible > > bits. The attached patch fixes that. > > At the same time it would make sense to rename CHECKPOINT_CAUSE_XLOG? I > would not risk back-patching such a change as that would be annoying for > tools parsing logs like pgbadger. There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched either, only the user-facing parts were changed. If this gets accepted, I'll submit a patch for pgbadger so it can be updated before PG12 hits the field. Christoph
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched > either, only the user-facing parts were changed. I have heard of them ;) Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is isolated. It is not a big deal to do nothing though. > If this gets accepted, I'll submit a patch for pgbadger so it can be > updated before PG12 hits the field. Your change looks acceptable to me FWIW. -- Michael
Attachment
Greetings, * Christoph Berg (christoph.berg@credativ.de) wrote: > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible > bits. The attached patch fixes that. +1 Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched > > either, only the user-facing parts were changed. > > I have heard of them ;) > Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is > isolated. It is not a big deal to do nothing though. Well, if we rename the user-visible part but not the internal part, then they don't match, which is odd. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2018-Nov-29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched > > > either, only the user-facing parts were changed. > > > > I have heard of them ;) > > Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is > > isolated. It is not a big deal to do nothing though. > > Well, if we rename the user-visible part but not the internal part, > then they don't match, which is odd. But we already did that when we renamed all the xlog to WAL terminology ... why do we care about it now particularly? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Greetings, * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2018-Nov-29, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched > > > > either, only the user-facing parts were changed. > > > > > > I have heard of them ;) > > > Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is > > > isolated. It is not a big deal to do nothing though. > > > > Well, if we rename the user-visible part but not the internal part, > > then they don't match, which is odd. > > But we already did that when we renamed all the xlog to WAL terminology > ... why do we care about it now particularly? I thought the idea was that we'd adjust things in the actual code as that code was refactored or adjusted for other reasons, to minimize the back-patching pain. That said, in this particular case that would mean just changing one variable when the other related ones aren't changed and I suspect that might just be more confusing than having this difference between the code and the user-messages. So, at least in this instance, my feeling is that we keep the variable as-is and just adjust the user message. When, down the road, there's a larger refactoring or change in this part of the code, that would be the time to change the code to refer to WAL instead of XLOG. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.berg@credativ.de] > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits. > The attached patch fixes that. Can we make use of this chance to change elog() to ereport(), so that the two messages are translated? Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
Greetings, * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote: > From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.berg@credativ.de] > > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits. > > The attached patch fixes that. > > Can we make use of this chance to change elog() to ereport(), so that the two messages are translated? +1, and we should probably look for nearby cases to fix also.. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:31:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote: >> From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.berg@credativ.de] >> > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" >> > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits. >> > The attached patch fixes that. >> >> Can we make use of this chance to change elog() to ereport(), so that the two messages are translated? > > +1, and we should probably look for nearby cases to fix also.. Good point. +1. -- Michael
Attachment
On 29/11/2018 09:47, Christoph Berg wrote: > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog" > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible > bits. The attached patch fixes that. committed -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services