| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 23:42:27 |
| Message-ID: | 40de25aa-2e20-08ad-e014-edb731594a74@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 15/02/2022 23:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Makes sense, committed it that way.
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-02-16 01:26:47 | pgsql: Add TAP test to automate the equivalent of check_guc, take two |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2022-02-15 23:42:04 | pgsql: Fix race condition in 028_pitr_timelines.pl test, add note to do |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-15 23:51:57 | Re: Race conditions in 019_replslot_limit.pl |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-02-15 23:33:37 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |