On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:23 PM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 6:56 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:47 AM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, at 4:12 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS even needed? > > Why isn't recovery_timeout enough to decide if wait_for_end_recovery() > > waited long enough? > > > > > > It was an attempt to decoupled a connection failure (that keeps streaming > > the > > WAL) from recovery timeout. The NUM_CONN_ATTEMPTS guarantees that if the > > primary > > is gone during the standby recovery process, there is a way to bail out. > > > > I think we don't need to check primary if the WAL corresponding to > consistent_lsn is already present on the standby. Shouldn't we first > check that? Once we ensure that the required WAL is copied, just > checking server_is_in_recovery() should be sufficient. I feel that > will be a direct way of ensuring what is required rather than > indirectly verifying the same (by checking pg_stat_wal_receiver) as we > are doing currently. > > > How would you check it? WAL file? During recovery, you are not allowed to use > pg_current_wal_lsn. >
How about pg_last_wal_receive_lsn()? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
