On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:52:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > > On 2/24/10 5:36 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > >> gsmith=# select pg_stop_backup(); > >> NOTICE: pg_stop_backup cleanup done, waiting for required segments to > >> archive > >> WARNING: pg_stop_backup still waiting for all required segments to > >> archive (60 seconds elapsed) > >> HINT: Confirm your archive_command is executing successfully. > >> pg_stop_backup can be aborted safely, but the resulting backup will not > >> be usable. > >> ^CCancel request sent > >> ERROR: canceling statement due to user request > > > This looks really good, thanks! > > The one thing I'm undecided about is whether we want the immediate > NOTICE, as opposed to dialing down the time till the first WARNING > to something like 5 or 10 seconds. I think the main argument for > the latter approach would be to avoid log-spam in normal operation. > Although Greg is correct that a NOTICE wouldn't be logged at default > log levels, lots of people don't use that default. Comments?
As I see it, the clarity concern trumps the log spam one. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
