On 29/11/2018 09:47, Christoph Berg wrote:
> A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible
> bits. The attached patch fixes that.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQ
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:31:02PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote:
>> From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.b...@credativ.de]
>> > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
>> > message was not included in the grand
Greetings,
* Tsunakawa, Takayuki (tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.b...@credativ.de]
> > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits.
> > The attached patch
From: Christoph Berg [mailto:christoph.b...@credativ.de]
> A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible bits.
> The attached patch fixes that.
Can we make use of this chance to change elog() to ereport(), so tha
Greetings,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-29, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not
On 2018-Nov-29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched
> > > either, only the user-facing parts were changed.
> >
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched
> > either, only the user-facing parts were changed.
>
> I have heard of them ;)
> Just wondering if th
Greetings,
* Christoph Berg (christoph.b...@credativ.de) wrote:
> A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible
> bits. The attached patch fixes that.
+1
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched
> either, only the user-facing parts were changed.
I have heard of them ;)
Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is
isolated. It is not a
Re: Michael Paquier 2018-11-29 <20181129085902.gd9...@paquier.xyz>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> > message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible
> > bits. The attached patch
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:47:09AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> A customer was complaining that the "checkpoint starting: xlog"
> message was not included in the grand PG10 rename of user-visible
> bits. The attached patch fixes that.
At the same time it would make sense to rename CHECKPOINT_CAU
11 matches
Mail list logo
