| From: | Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RecoveryWalAll and RecoveryWalStream wait events |
| Date: | 2020-03-18 08:56:38 |
| Message-ID: | CACZ0uYFXtB3zYCW5p+nb9TXDnyUim6BctFaiBp7r4yUcfARCTQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:55 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
wrote:
> > > Waiting when WAL data is not available from any kind of sources
> > > (local, archive or stream) before trying again to retrieve WAL
> data,
> >
> > I think 'local' means pg_wal here, but the comment on
> > WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable() says checking pg_wal in
> > standby mode is 'not documented', so I'm a little bit worried
> > that users may be confused.
>
> This logic seems to be documented in high-availability.sgml.
Thanks! I didn't notice it.
I think you mean the below sentence.
> The standby server will also attempt to restore any WAL found in the
standby cluster's pg_wal directory.
It seems the comment on WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable()
does not go along with the high-availability.sgml, do we need
modification on the comment on the function?
Or do I misunderstand something?
But, anyway, you think that "pg_wal" should be used instead
of "local" here?
I don't have special opinion here.
It might be better because high-availability.sgml does not use
"local" but "pg_wal" for the explanation, but I also feel it's
obvious in this context.
Regards,
--
Torikoshi Atsushi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takashi Menjo | 2020-03-18 08:58:45 | RE: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-03-18 08:56:35 | Re: Collation versioning |