| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: last_archived_wal is not necessary the latest WAL file (was Re: pgsql: Add test case for an archive recovery corner case.) |
| Date: | 2022-02-15 21:28:27 |
| Message-ID: | 3186114.1644960507@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> That was interesting: the order that WAL segments are archived when a
> standby is promoted is not fully deterministic.
Oh, of course.
> I find it a bit surprising that pg_stat_archiver.last_archived_wal is
> not necessarily the highest-numbered segment that was archived. I
> propose that we mention that in the docs, as in the attached patch.
+1, but I think the description of that field in the pg-stat-archiver-view
table is also pretty misleading. Maybe like
- Name of the last WAL file successfully archived
+ Name of the WAL file most recently successfully archived
and similarly s/last/most recent/ for the other fields claiming
to be "last" something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-15 21:54:43 | pgsql: docs: Work around bug in the docbook xsl stylesheets. |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2022-02-15 21:20:50 | last_archived_wal is not necessary the latest WAL file (was Re: pgsql: Add test case for an archive recovery corner case.) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2022-02-15 21:29:20 | Race conditions in 019_replslot_limit.pl |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-15 21:21:23 | PGEventProcs must not be allowed to break libpq |