On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> > I meant the following part in the doc. > > --------------------- > At startup, the standby begins by restoring all WAL available in the > archive > location, calling restore_command. Once it reaches the end of WAL available > there and restore_command fails, it tries to restore any WAL available in > the > pg_wal directory. If that fails, and streaming replication has been > configured, > the standby tries to connect to the primary server and start streaming WAL > from > the last valid record found in archive or pg_wal. If that fails or > streaming > replication is not configured, or if the connection is later disconnected, > the standby goes back to step 1 and tries to restore the file from the > archive > again. This loop of retries from the archive, pg_wal, and via streaming > replication goes on until the server is stopped or failover is triggered > by a > trigger file. > --------------------- > > Thanks! > > It seems the comment on WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable() > > does not go along with the high-availability.sgml, do we need > > modification on the comment on the function? > > No, I think for now. But you'd like to improve the docs? > I'll do it. > > But, anyway, you think that "pg_wal" should be used instead > > > > of "local" here? > > > > > > I don't have special opinion here. > > It might be better because high-availability.sgml does not use > > "local" but "pg_wal" for the explanation, but I also feel it's > > obvious in this context. > > Ok, I changed that from "local" to "pg_wal" in the patch for > the master. Attached is the updated version of the patch. > If you're OK with this, I'd like to commit two patches that I posted > in this thread. Thanks for your modification and it looks good to me. Regards, -- Torikoshi Atsushi
