Re: pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_replication log positions vs base backups
Date: 2015-11-25 10:18:29
Message-ID: CABUevEwxkO+ahS29LHTbK2vbLCzr_O0nW37VAcKQuAj8BzkzJQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

> Are the values for the log locations really relevant for backup
> connections? And if they are, we need to document it :) ISTM we are just
> more or less leaking random data out there?
>
> I'm talking about the actual state=backup connection - not the connection
> if we're using -x with pg_basebackup. Where we have output like:
>
> state | backup
> sent_location | 0/0
> write_location | 2/76CE0000
> flush_location | 2/76CC0000
> replay_location | 2/76CBF938
>
> I'm thinking those fields should probably all be NULL for state=backup?
>
>
In particular, it seems that in InitWalSenderSlot, we only initialize the
sent location. Perhaps this is needed?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Attachment Content-Type Size
walsnd_init.patch text/x-patch 560 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-11-25 10:23:28 Re: problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce
Previous Message YUriy Zhuravlev 2015-11-25 09:41:16 Re: WIP: About CMake v2