From: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
Date: | 2018-12-12 15:55:04 |
Message-ID: | 103671544630104@myt5-262fb1897c00.qloud-c.yandex.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
> This allows the state of walrcv and startup to diverge, they could e.g. have different configuration, due to differently time config reloads.
So we have exactly same problem with, for example, hot_standby_feedback, right?
We change hot_standby_feedback value, reload it and we can have 'show hot_standby_feedback' different to currently running walreceiver.
But why we have nothing about hot_standby_feedback in pg_stat_get_wal_receiver()?
Where is difference?
regards, Sergei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-12 15:57:07 | Upgrading pg_statistic to handle collation honestly |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2018-12-12 14:58:07 | Re: Reorganize collation lookup time and place |