FAQ
Does anyone actually read these?

LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
LOG: database system is ready

Why not just:

LOG: database system is ready

If people are worried that the startup might take longer, then maybe add

LOG: database system is starting

before that.

Comments?

Search Discussions

  • Tom Lane at May 30, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Peter Eisentraut writes:
    Does anyone actually read these?
    LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
    LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
    LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
    LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
    LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
    LOG: database system is ready
    Why not just:
    LOG: database system is ready
    I like the report of the previous system state (the first line).
    I agree that the four in the middle could be reduced to DEBUG1 or
    some such.

    regards, tom lane
  • Michael Paesold at Jun 1, 2007 at 7:04 am

    Tom Lane wrote:
    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
    Does anyone actually read these?
    LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
    LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
    LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
    LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
    LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
    LOG: database system is ready
    Why not just:
    LOG: database system is ready
    I like the report of the previous system state (the first line).
    I agree that the four in the middle could be reduced to DEBUG1 or
    some such.
    +1 from me. In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full
    output, no? It might be important information then.

    Best Regards
    Michael Paesold
  • Jim Nasby at Jun 2, 2007 at 1:10 am

    On Jun 1, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Michael Paesold wrote:
    In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full output, no?
    +1
    --
    Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
    EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jun 2, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Michael Paesold wrote:
    In case of recovery, I think one should still get the full
    output, no?
    Recovery happens just after these messages are printed, so the window
    when they are actually relevant would be very small.
  • Simon Riggs at Jun 1, 2007 at 8:08 am

    On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 17:57 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    Does anyone actually read these?

    LOG: database system was shut down at 2007-05-30 17:54:39 CEST
    LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/42C4FC
    LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
    LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
    LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
    LOG: database system is ready

    Why not just:

    LOG: database system is ready

    If people are worried that the startup might take longer, then maybe add

    LOG: database system is starting

    before that.

    Comments?
    I understand the thought, but don't think that is a good idea.

    Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a
    database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just
    started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are
    looking at. Debugging recovery is hard enough already, so please don't
    remove this information.

    Also, the startup signature would not be verbose enough to catch your
    eye as you look through the log. If you want to change this, we should
    have some additional eyecatcher text in there, e.g. ==============...

    These lines don't have much meaning for me and could be DEBUG1:
    LOG: redo record is at 0/42C4FC; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
    LOG: next transaction ID: 0/593; next OID: 10820
    LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
    --
    Simon Riggs
    EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jun 1, 2007 at 8:33 am

    Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2007 10:06 schrieb Simon Riggs:
    Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a
    database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just
    started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are
    looking at.
    No, the database identifier defines that.
    Also, the startup signature would not be verbose enough to catch your
    eye as you look through the log. If you want to change this, we should
    have some additional eyecatcher text in there, e.g. ==============...
    There are text-search facilties for that.
  • Simon Riggs at Jun 1, 2007 at 8:59 am

    On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:33 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    Am Freitag, 1. Juni 2007 10:06 schrieb Simon Riggs:
    Recovery considerations mean there can be more than one copy of a
    database and it is important to be able to tell which one was just
    started. The time a database was shutdown defines which copy we are
    looking at.
    No, the database identifier defines that.
    No, it doesn't.

    As I said, there can be more than one copy of the *same* database.

    --
    Simon Riggs
    EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedMay 30, '07 at 3:57p
activeJun 2, '07 at 8:10p
posts8
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase