On 2020/03/15 0:06, Atsushi Torikoshi wrote:
On 2020/02/19 21:46 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.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.
+1 to document them more. It's not easy task, though..
> 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.
This logic seems to be documented in high-availability.sgml. But, anyway, you think that "pg_wal" should be used instead of "local" here? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NTT DATA CORPORATION Advanced Platform Technology Group Research and Development Headquarters
