On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 5:32 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > At Wed, 5 Feb 2020 16:29:54 +0900, Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > wrote in > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:36 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > > wrote: > > > On 2020/02/04 10:34, Amit Langote wrote: > > > > I like: > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing the patch! > > > > > > > 1. initializing > > > > 2-5 waiting for backup start checkpoint to finish > > > > > > Can we shorten this to "waiting for checkpoint"? IMO the simpler > > > phase name is better and "to finish" sounds a bit redundant. Also > > > in the description of pg_stat_progress_create_index, basically > > > "waiting for xxx" is used. > > > > "waiting for checkpoint" works for me. > > 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. As Fujii-san says though we don't need the noise words "to finish". Thanks, Amit
