| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | richard coleman <rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump why no indicator of completion |
| Date: | 2023-05-01 15:25:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaEckQ5T10RwLsAx5giGtz9B4RsJg=U6WbZBTGAPmKSBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 5:18 PM richard coleman <rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> For example, I've been running a bunch of backups with pg_dump in
> directory mode with multiple jobs. When I come back several hours later
> there are no pg_dump processes running. The log is filled with:
>
> dumping contents of foo
> finished item 123456 of TABLE DATA bar
>
>
I agree that any log file that contains this level of detail regarding the
operational detail can (IMO, should) also have an indication regarding the
final outcome of the process.
The arguments about "the Unix way" seem to have forgotten the point about
being silent except in cases of exception, and this level of detail already
violates that premise.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rui DeSousa | 2023-05-01 15:29:22 | Re: pg_dump why no indicator of completion |
| Previous Message | richard coleman | 2023-05-01 15:10:31 | Re: pg_dump why no indicator of completion |