From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 10:19:56 +0900
Message-ID: <00fb7551-24e5-375b-2dd4-5ea3441458cd@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200519233129.GA2355@paquier.xyz>
References: <20200515230539.GC212736@paquier.xyz>
<20200515233446.GA334@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200516011547.GD212736@paquier.xyz>
<20200517010857.GI212736@paquier.xyz>
<c049ffcf-d2fe-90f7-c8ba-0741035aa6a7@oss.nttdata.com>
<20200519233129.GA2355@paquier.xyz>
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 <literal>received_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
>> + view's <literal>flushed_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
>
> Oops, thanks. Will fix.
Thanks for the 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?
No, that's not good idea, as I told upthread.
> 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()
Yes, that's long.
> 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.
Yeah, agreed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto
In-Reply-To: <00fb7551-24e5-375b-2dd4-5ea3441458cd@oss.nttdata.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox