| From: | Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(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: | 2020-03-14 15:06:12 |
| Message-ID: | CACZ0uYE1UJomZ1tiB1vLwJSo_a2HAoXA6AF4=GRNfEkz-J1kNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/02/19 21:46 Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>:
>> I agree to the former, I think RecoveryWalInterval works well enough.
>RecoveryWalInterval sounds confusing to me...
IMHO as a user, I prefer RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval because
it's easy to understand this wait_event is related to the
parameter 'wal_retrieve_retry_interval'.
Also from the point of balance, the explanation of
RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval is lengthy, but I
sometimes feel explanations of wait_events in the
manual are so simple that it's hard to understand
well.
> Waiting when WAL data is not available from any kind of sources
> (local, archive or stream) before trying again to retrieve WAL data,
I think 'local' means pg_wal here, but the comment on
WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable() says checking pg_wal in
standby mode is 'not documented', so I'm a little bit worried
that users may be confused.
Regards,
--
Torikoshi Atsushi
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-03-14 15:21:59 | Re: PATCH: add support for IN and @> in functional-dependency statistics use |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-03-14 14:16:42 | Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray |