On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:38:52PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > 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
Oops, thanks. Will fix. > 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. I think you mean renaming pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to something like pg_last_wal_flushed_lsn(), no? This name may become confusing because we lose the "receive" idea in the function, that we have with the "receiver" part of pg_stat_wal_receiver. Maybe something like that, though that's long: - pg_last_wal_receive_flushed_lsn() - pg_last_wal_receive_written_lsn() Anyway, a rename of this function does not strike me as strongly necessary, as that's less tied with the shared memory structure, and we document that pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() tracks the current LSN received and flushed. I am actually wondering if in the future it may not be better to remove this function, but it has no maintenance cost either so I would just let it as-is. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
