Re: RecoveryWalAll and RecoveryWalStream wait events

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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