Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: godjan • <g0dj4n(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Strange decreasing value of pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()
Date: 2020-05-09 08:48:07
Message-ID: 20200509084807.GL11539@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:02:26PM +0500, godjan • wrote:
> Can you recommend what to use to determine which quorum standby
> should be promoted in such case?
> We planned to use pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to determine which has
> fresh data but if it returns the beginning of the segment on both
> replicas we can’t determine which standby confirmed that write
> transaction to disk.

If you want to preserve transaction-level consistency across those
notes, what is your configuration for synchronous_standby_names and
synchronous_commit on the primary? Cannot you rely on that?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Juan José Santamaría Flecha 2020-05-09 08:51:36 Re: stat() on Windows might cause error if target file is larger than 4GB
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-05-09 07:39:08 Re: pg_restore error message