On 2020/05/20 8:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
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 received_lsn indicates that WAL is being
+
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 received_lsn indicates that WAL is being
> + view's flushed_lsn indicates that WAL i
On 2020/05/17 10:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:15:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Thanks. If there are no objections, I'll revisit that tomorrow and
apply it with those changes, just in time for beta1.
Okay, done this part then.
I found that "received_lsn" is s
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:15:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Thanks. If there are no objections, I'll revisit that tomorrow and
> apply it with those changes, just in time for beta1.
Okay, done this part then.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:34:46PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> IIRC the only reason to put the written LSN where it is is so that it's
> below the mutex, to indicate it's not protected by it. Conceptually,
> the written LSN is "before" the flushed LSN, which is why I propose to
> put it ahead o
On 2020-May-16, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:43:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Why do you put the column at the end? I would put written_lsn before
> > flushed_lsn.
>
> Fine by me. I was thinking yesterday about putting the written
> position after the flushed one,
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:43:11PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why do you put the column at the end? I would put written_lsn before
> flushed_lsn.
Fine by me. I was thinking yesterday about putting the written
position after the flushed one, and finished with something that maps
with the stru
On 2020-May-15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As discussed in the thread that introduced d140f2f3 to rename
> receivedUpto to flushedUpto and add writtenUpto to the WAL receiver's
> shared memory information, the equivalent columns in
> pg_stat_wal_receiver have not been renamed:
> When I have impleme
Hi,
As discussed in the thread that introduced d140f2f3 to rename
receivedUpto to flushedUpto and add writtenUpto to the WAL receiver's
shared memory information, the equivalent columns in
pg_stat_wal_receiver have not been renamed:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+hukgj06d3h5jeotav4h52n0v
