pg_resetxlog display bogosity

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>

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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