Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Small patch to set ps display during recovery, so we can see the current > WAL file being processed in both crash and archive recovery. Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually exists yet. Applied with modifications ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 14:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hmm, not right there, because we don't know that the file actually >> exists yet. Applied with modifications ... > Double hmmm, that means when we are waiting for file X in pg_standby the > ps display will still show "recovering X-1". I'd prefer to set ps before > the call to RestoreArchivedFile(), since that is where the wait occurs. > I got that wrong myself. Well, if you think that's an important time component --- which it could be in archive situations, I guess --- there should be a separate PS display state for it. Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"? > Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity: > IMHO wording should be > "restoring X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only) > "recovering X" once we have the file (archive or not) Those two words seem close enough in meaning that most admins wouldn't be clear on the difference. I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably because you are physically getting the file from someplace else. In the specific context of a warm standby machine, "waiting for" would be the bon mot, but that would probably be inappropriate for other contexts. As for the second-phase activity, "recovering" is fine, or maybe "processing"? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for >> the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases >> where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably >> because you are physically getting the file from someplace else. > "Waiting for" sounds best I think. It might be waiting for a manual tape > mount for example, not just a warm standby. If the wait isn't very long > it won't hardly notice anyway. Hmm ... I guess that's OK, because after all we *are* waiting for the restore_command to do something. Will make it so. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org