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.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
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[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
--
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
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 identifi
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 transacti
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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; nex
