Hi, On 2020-03-23 10:37:16 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-03-05 08:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > | [20866] LOG: replication terminated by primary server > > | [20866] DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1 at 0/30001C8. > > | [20866] FATAL: could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no > > COPY in progress
IMO it's a bug that we see this FATAL. I seem to recall that we didn't use to get that? > > | [20851] LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/30001C8 on timeline 1 in archive > > during standby mode > > | [20851] DETAIL: invalid record length at 0/30001C8: wanted 24, got 0 > > > > I changed the above to the below, which looks more adequate. > > > > | [24271] LOG: replication terminated by primary server on timeline 1 at > > 0/3000240. > > | [24271] FATAL: could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no > > COPY in progress > > | [24267] LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/3000240 on timeline 1 in archive > > during standby mode > > | [24267] DETAIL: invalid record length at 0/3000240: wanted 24, got 0 > > Is this the before and after? That doesn't seem like a substantial > improvement to me. You still get the "scary" message at the end. It seems like a minor improvement - folding the DETAIL into the message makes sense to me here. But it indeed doesn't really address the main issue. I think we don't want to elide the information about how the end of the WAL was detected - there are some issues where I found that quite helpful. But we could reformulate it to be clearer that it's informative output, not a bug. E.g. something roughly like LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/3000240 on timeline 1 in archive during standby mode DETAIL: End detected due to invalid record length at 0/3000240: expected 24, got 0 (I first elided the position in the DETAIL, but it could differ from the one in LOG) I don't find that very satisfying, but I can't come up with something that provides the current information, while being less scary than my suggestion? Greetings, Andres Freund
