Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/28/2015 09:53 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> The name is just as misleading at the source-code level, maybe more so >>> since they're all just numbers in C. +1 for changing it everywhere >>> before somebody makes a mistake based on the incorrect names. >> >> Ok, I'm on it now > > Great,

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway writes: > I think the attached does the job. Note I settled on > (new|old)estCommitTsXid as that seemed most descriptive and not horribly > longer than before. It did mean, however, that I needed to add a single > space to all the output in pg_resetxlog and

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Joe Conway wrote: > On 12/28/2015 09:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Joe Conway writes: > >> Ok, but now next question -- should we just change the user visible > >> output to oldestCommitXID/newestCommitXID, or should we change the > >> variable name everywhere it appears in

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/26/2015 06:32 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> In looking at the exposing pg_controldata as function patch again, it >> struck me that the following output seems wrong: >> >> -- >> Latest checkpoint's

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway writes: > Ok, but now next question -- should we just change the user visible > output to oldestCommitXID/newestCommitXID, or should we change the > variable name everywhere it appears in source as well? Looks like each > one appears about 25-30 times scattered

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/28/2015 09:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> Ok, but now next question -- should we just change the user visible >> output to oldestCommitXID/newestCommitXID, or should we change the >> variable name everywhere it appears in source as well? Looks like each

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/28/2015 10:35 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > An alternative would be to not have a space at all for those two, e.g. > > "Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTsXid:%u\n" > "Latest checkpoint's newestCommitTsXid:%u\n" > > That isn't too bad and would leave everything aligned. That seems like the

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Tom Lane
Joe Conway writes: > I retract my earlier suggestion of doing HEAD different from > REL9_5_STABLE, at least for the moment. My patch for pg_controldata > related functions is going to impact all this anyway, so we might as > well not fuss about it now. Seems reasonable. >

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/28/2015 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Joe Conway writes: >>> I think the attached does the job. Note I settled on >>> (new|old)estCommitTsXid as that seemed most descriptive and not horribly >>> longer than before. It did mean, however, that I

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: > > I think the attached does the job. Note I settled on > > (new|old)estCommitTsXid as that seemed most descriptive and not horribly > > longer than before. It did mean, however, that I needed to add a single > > space to all the output in

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 12/28/2015 11:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway writes: >> I retract my earlier suggestion of doing HEAD different from >> REL9_5_STABLE, at least for the moment. My patch for pg_controldata >> related functions is going to impact all this anyway, so we might as >> well

[HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-26 Thread Joe Conway
In looking at the exposing pg_controldata as function patch again, it struck me that the following output seems wrong: -- Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTs: 20257 Latest checkpoint's newestCommitTs: 84159 -- Those numbers are XIDs, not timestamps. Shouldn't we either

Re: [HACKERS] oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

2015-12-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > In looking at the exposing pg_controldata as function patch again, it > struck me that the following output seems wrong: > > -- > Latest checkpoint's oldestCommitTs: 20257 > Latest checkpoint's newestCommitTs: