| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto |
| Date: | 2020-05-19 14:38:52 |
| Message-ID: | c049ffcf-d2fe-90f7-c8ba-0741035aa6a7@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/05/17 10:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:15:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Thanks. If there are no objections, I'll revisit that tomorrow and
>> apply it with those changes, just in time for beta1.
>
> Okay, done this part then.
I found that "received_lsn" is still used in high-availability.sgml.
We should apply the following change in high-availability?
- view's <literal>received_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
+ view's <literal>flushed_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
BTW, we have pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() that returns the same lsn as
pg_stat_wal_receiver.flushed_lsn. Previously both used the term "receive"
in their names, but currently not. IMO it's better to use the same term in
those names for the consistency, but it's not good idea to rename
pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to something like pg_last_wal_receive_lsn().
I have no better idea for now. So I'm ok with the current names.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-05-19 14:39:48 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2020-05-19 14:36:13 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |