From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | pg_resetxlog display bogosity |
Date: | 2010-08-31 18:08:58 |
Message-ID: | 1283277511-sup-2152@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I just noticed that if I specify pg_resetxlog a timeline ID with the -l
switch, it will display this value as "TimeLineID of latest checkpoint".
Which is not really the truth.
I wonder if pg_resetxlog should display the actual pg_control values in
one section, and the values that would be set after a reset in a
different section, so that it is extra clear. So it would look like
pg_control values:
pg_control version number: 903
Catalog version number: 201004261
Database system identifier: 5509100787461288958
Latest checkpoint's TimeLineID: 1
Latest checkpoint's NextXID: 0/667
Latest checkpoint's NextOID: 16390
Latest checkpoint's NextMultiXactId: 1
Latest checkpoint's NextMultiOffset: 0
Latest checkpoint's oldestXID: 654
Latest checkpoint's oldestXID's DB: 1
Latest checkpoint's oldestActiveXID: 0
Maximum data alignment: 8
Database block size: 8192
Blocks per segment of large relation: 131072
WAL block size: 8192
Bytes per WAL segment: 16777216
Maximum length of identifiers: 64
Maximum columns in an index: 32
Maximum size of a TOAST chunk: 1996
Date/time type storage: 64-bit integers
Float4 argument passing: by value
Float8 argument passing: by value
Values to be used after reset:
First log file ID: 14
First log file segment: 28
TimeLineID: 57
(I'd also like to point out that the "Latest checkpoint's" phrasing is awkward
and cumbersome for translated output, but I'm refraining from suggest a
reword because it'd complicate matters for programs that try to read the
output)
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2010-08-31 18:13:47 | Re: Trouble with COPY IN |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-08-31 17:46:22 | Re: git: uh-oh |