From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
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 08:31:29 +0900
Message-ID: <20200519233129.GA2355@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c049ffcf-d2fe-90f7-c8ba-0741035aa6a7@oss.nttdata.com>
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>
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
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
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: michael@paquier.xyz, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, thomas.munro@gmail.com
Subject: Re: pg_stat_wal_receiver and flushedUpto/writtenUpto
In-Reply-To: <20200519233129.GA2355@paquier.xyz>
* 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