Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view

2018-12-04 Thread Maksim Milyutin 

04.12.2018 5:19, Michael Paquier wrote:


On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 01:28:15PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM Michael Paquier  wrote:

Yes, you are right.  It should be "on" as "remote_flush" is not a valid
value.  remote_flush is listed in SyncCommitLevel though, so this makes
me wonder if we should also introduce a new value for this purpose
available for users.  The fix you propose looks good to me.  Any
opinions from others?

+1 for the patch.

Thanks for confirming, Thomas.  I'll go apply hopefully tomorrow if
nobody has objections.


As for introducing remote_flush as the true name of the level, this
was discussed but somehow went off-course and never made it to the
finish line:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3FFaanSS4sugG%2BApzq2tCVjEYCO2wOQBod2d7GWb%3DDvA%40mail.gmail.com

Oh, I forgot this one.  We may want to revive that...  remote_flush is
more meaningful than on, especially since there are more and more
possible values for synchronous_commit.



Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate 
especially in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe 
it makes sense to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of 
*flush_lag*?


--
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin

Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view

2018-12-04 Thread Michael Paquier 
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:22AM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:
> Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate especially
> in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe it makes sense
> to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of *flush_lag*?

I am not sure that this is an improvement.  Anyway, I have committed
your original patch as that's clearly a mistake and back-patched down to
v10.
--
Michael


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Typo in description of replay_lag attribute in pg_stat_replication view

2018-12-04 Thread Maksim Milyutin 

05.12.2018 4:04, Michael Paquier wrote:


On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:24:22AM +0300, Maksim Milyutin wrote:

Yeah, I think the notion *remote_flush level* is more appropriate especially
in the context of sync replication. Within this context maybe it makes sense
to replace the word *level* to *value* in description of *flush_lag*?

I am not sure that this is an improvement.  Anyway, I have committed
your original patch as that's clearly a mistake and back-patched down to
v10.



Ok, thanks.

--
Regards,
Maksim Milyutin