Re: Replication status in logical replication

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Replication status in logical replication
Date: 2017-05-30 02:56:38
Message-ID: 20170530025638.GF116176@gust.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:33:48AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 22 March 2017 at 02:50, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >> When using logical replication, I ran into a situation where the
> >> pg_stat_replication.state is not updated until any wal record is sent
> >> after started up. For example, I set up logical replication with 2
> >> subscriber and restart the publisher server, but I see the following
> >> status for a while (maybe until autovacuum run).
> > ...
> >
> >> Attached patch fixes this behavior by updating WalSndCaughtUp before
> >> trying to read next WAL if already caught up.
> >
> > Looks like a bug that we should fix in PG10, with backpatch to 9.4 (or
> > as far as it goes).
> >
> > Objections to commit?
> >
>
> Seems we still have this issue. Any update or comment on this? Barring
> any objections, I'll add this to the open item so it doesn't get
> missed.

[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Peter,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution. Thanks.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2017-05-30 03:04:47 Re: Server ignores contents of SASLInitialResponse
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-05-30 02:41:38 Re: [COMMITTERS] Re: pgsql: Code review focused on new node types added by partitioning supp