Обсуждение: Postmaster startup messages
Does anyone actually read these? LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820 LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0 LOG: database system is ready Why not just: LOG: database system is ready If people are worried that the startup might take longer, then maybe add LOG: database system is starting before that. Comments? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Does anyone actually read these?
> LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
> LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
> LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
> LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
> LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
> LOG: database system is ready
> Why not just:
> LOG: database system is ready
I like the report of the previous system state (the first line).
I agree that the four in the middle could be reduced to DEBUG1 or
some such.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> Does anyone actually read these? >> LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST >> LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC >> LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE >> LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820 >> LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0 >> LOG: database system is ready > >> Why not just: > >> LOG: database system is ready > > I like the report of the previous system state (the first line). > I agree that the four in the middle could be reduced to DEBUG1 or > some such. +1 from me. In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full output, no? It might be important information then. Best Regards Michael Paesold
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:57 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Does anyone actually read these? > > LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST > LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC > LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE > LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820 > LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0 > LOG: database system is ready > > Why not just: > > LOG: database system is ready > > If people are worried that the startup might take longer, then maybe add > > LOG: database system is starting > > before that. > > Comments? I understand the thought, but don't think that is a good idea. Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are looking at. Debugging recovery is hard enough already, so please don't remove this information. Also, the startup signature would not be verbose enough to catch your eye as you look through the log. If you want to change this, we should have some additional eyecatcher text in there, e.g. ==============... These lines don't have much meaning for me and could be DEBUG1: > LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE > LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820 > LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0 -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2007 10:06 schrieb Simon Riggs: > Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a > database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just > started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are > looking at. No, the database identifier defines that. > Also, the startup signature would not be verbose enough to catch your > eye as you look through the log. If you want to change this, we should > have some additional eyecatcher text in there, e.g. ==============... There are text-search facilties for that. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:33 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2007 10:06 schrieb Simon Riggs: > > Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a > > database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just > > started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are > > looking at. > > No, the database identifier defines that. No, it doesn't. As I said, there can be more than one copy of the *same* database. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Jun 1, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Michael Paesold wrote: > In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full output, no? +1 -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Michael Paesold wrote: > In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full > output, no? Recovery happens just after these messages are printed, so the window when they are actually relevant would be very small. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/