| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vaishnavi Prabakaran <vaishnaviprabakaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication |
| Date: | 2018-01-16 01:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoBptXvf7yc-keY-D8qCtkm+ve2nE_X9aASor5aJnNneQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9 January 2018 at 04:36, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> This patch appears to cause this DEBUG1 message
>>>
>>> "standby \"%s\" has now caught up with primary"
>>>
>>> which probably isn't the right message, but might be OK to backpatch.
>>>
>>> Thoughts on better wording?
>>>
>>
>> I think that this DEBUG1 message appears when sent any WAL after
>> caught up even without this patch. This patch makes this message
>> appear at a properly timing. Or am I missing something?
>
> We're not talking about standbys, so the message is incorrect.
>
Ah, I understood. How about "\"%s\" has now caught up with upstream server"?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-01-16 01:57:49 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-16 00:54:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |