On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Interesting. I got just today a bug report that is actually a symptom >> that people should be careful about: it is possible that >> pg_stat_replication reports 1/potential for sync_priority/sync_state >> in the case of a WAL sender in "backup" state: a base backup just >> needs to reuse the shared memory slot of a standby that was previously >> connected. Commit 61c7bee of Magnus fixes the issue, just let's be >> careful if there are similar reports that do not include this fix. > > > Hmm. With the fix, it returns "async", right?
Yes, it returns async with priority set at 0 after your commit. That's a bit better than the old behavior, still.. > Perhaps it should return either "backup" or NULL, to be even more clear? And > with priority set to NULL? I'd vote for just NULL for both fields. This async/sync status has no real sense for a backup. Thoughts? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
