On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 5:00 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:31 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote: > > > The following activitymsg that are being set to ps display in > > > XLogFileRead and pgarch_archiveXlog have come up for one of our > > > internal team discussions recently: > > > > > > snprintf(activitymsg, sizeof(activitymsg), "waiting for %s", > > > xlogfname); > > > set_ps_display(activitymsg); > > > > > > snprintf(activitymsg, sizeof(activitymsg), "recovering %s", > > > xlogfname); > > > set_ps_display(activitymsg); > > > > > > snprintf(activitymsg, sizeof(activitymsg), "archiving %s", xlog); > > > set_ps_display(activitymsg); > > > > > > The ps display info might be useful if we run postgres on a stand > > > alone box and there's someone monitoring at the ps output, but it > > > doesn't help debugging after an issue has occurred. How about we have > > > the following statements which will be useful for someone to look at > > > the server logs and know what was/is happening during the recovery and > > > archiving. > > > > If an issue occurs while the command is executing, > > the error message is logged, isn't it? Isn't that enough for your case? > > You are right when an issue occurs. However, these messages will be > useful 1) if the recovery or archiving is taking a lot of time and one > would want to understand how it is progressing. 2) if these commands > pass but an issue occurs in some other area of the code. IMO, we > should have these as LOG messages instead of just setting in the ps > display for temporary purposes which doesn't work well with the > postgres on cloud where users/admins/developers don't get to see the > ps display. > > > > IMO, we should also have the elog statement. > > > > > > elog(LOG, "waiting for %s", xlogfname); > > > elog(LOG, "recovering %s"", xlogfname); > > > elog(LOG, "archiving %s", xlog); > > > > I'm afraid that some people think that it's noisy to always log those > > messages. > > I don't think these are noisy messages at all. In fact, they will be > useful to answer (if not exact answers, but an approximation) some of > the customer queries like "what is happening in my server during the > recovery/archiving phase? how much more time recovery might take?". > Today, the server emits lot of LOGs, adding these will not blow up the > server logs at all if the log rotation policy is configured > appropriately. > > Having said the above, I plan to discuss these things in a separate thread.
Just for the records - I've started a new thread for the above discussion - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUfMU%3Dahxivfy%2BZmpVZccd5PASG-_10mLpM55_Y_h4-VA%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
