Re: RecoveryWalAll and RecoveryWalStream wait events

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik(at)gmail(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: 2020-03-19 06:34:49
Message-ID: 2811dcd9-2928-a08c-7034-23c021dbc0ec@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020/03/18 22:37, Atsushi Torikoshi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
> I meant the following part in the doc.
>
> ---------------------
> At startup, the standby begins by restoring all WAL available in the archive
> location, calling restore_command. Once it reaches the end of WAL available
> there and restore_command fails, it tries to restore any WAL available in the
> pg_wal directory. If that fails, and streaming replication has been configured,
> the standby tries to connect to the primary server and start streaming WAL from
> the last valid record found in archive or pg_wal. If that fails or streaming
> replication is not configured, or if the connection is later disconnected,
> the standby goes back to step 1 and tries to restore the file from the archive
> again. This loop of retries from the archive, pg_wal, and via streaming
> replication goes on until the server is stopped or failover is triggered by a
> trigger file.
> ---------------------
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> > 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?
>
> No, I think for now. But you'd like to improve the docs?
>
>
> I'll do it.
>
> >     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.
>
> Ok, I changed that from "local" to "pg_wal" in the patch for
> the master. Attached is the updated version of the patch.
> If you're OK with this, I'd like to commit two patches that I posted
> in this thread.
>
>
>  Thanks for your modification and it looks good to me.

Pushed! Thanks a lot!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2020-03-19 06:42:22 Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation
Previous Message Takashi Menjo 2020-03-19 06:11:10 RE: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer