Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Langote
Тема Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
Дата
Msg-id CA+HiwqG3OhyJtXbXfXtdZhSSaCZhqtBR1TK4wp2O9yVH3YamFQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting forpg_basebackup, in the server side
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 18:25 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 6:15 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2020年2月5日(水) 17:54 Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> I meant that the wording might sound as if it implies "to start", but..

Ah, I misunderstood then, sorry.

So, maybe you're saying that "waiting for checkpoint" is ambiguous and
most people will assume it means "...to start".  As for me, I assume
it ends with "...to finish".

>> As Fujii-san says
>> though we don't need the noise words "to finish".
>
> Understood, sorry for my noise.

Actually, that's an important point to consider and we should strive
to use words that are unambiguous.

Last two messages weren’t sent to the list.

Thanks,
Amit

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Yugo NAGATA
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Следующее
От: Masahiko Sawada
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Complete data erasure