| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(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: | 2018-01-13 15:43:02 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jK4WF7ZxwvfhnNGsqkEO6JbwcPYtUO7Zr3RmVwgDh78fA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-01-13 15:46:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing is (fwd) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-01-13 15:40:01 | Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation() |