On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 18:18 -0500 schrieb Robert Haas: >> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > > I'd rather have a --quiet mode instead. If you're running it by hand, >> > > you're likely to omit the switch, whereas when writing the cron job >> > > you're going to notice lack of switch even before you let the job run >> > > once. >> > >> > Well, that might've been a better way to design it, but changing it >> > now would break backward compatibility and I'm not really sure that's >> > a good idea. Even if it is, it's a separate concern from whether or >> > not in the less-quiet mode we should point out that we're waiting for >> > a checkpoint on the server side. >> >> ISTM the consensus is that there should be no output in regular mode, >> but a message should be displayed in verbose and progress mode. >> >> So I went forth and also added a message in progress mode (unless >> verbose messages are requested anyway). >> >> Regarding the documentation, I tried to clarify the difference between >> the checkpoint types a bit more, but I think any further action is >> probably a larger rewrite of the documentation on this topic. >> >> So attached are two patches, I've split it up in the documentation and >> the code output part. I'll add it as one commitfest entry in the >> "Clients" section though, as it's not really a big patch, unless >> somebody thinks it should have a secon entry in "Documentation"? > > > Agreed, and applied as one patch. Except I noticed you also fixed a couple > of entries which were missing the progname in the messages -- I broke those > out to a separate patch instead. > > Made a small change to "using as much I/O as available" rather than "as > possible", which I think is a better wording, along with the change of the > idle wording I suggested before. (but feel free to point it out to me if > that's wrong). > Should the below fprintf end in a \r rather than a \n, so that the the progress message gets over-written once the checkpoint is done and we have moved on? if (showprogress && !verbose) fprintf(stderr, "waiting for checkpoint\n"); That would seem more in keeping with how the other progress messages operate. Cheers, Jeff