From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_receivewal documentation
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:28:57 +0200
Message-ID: <ebed4b9043b222d486ea3f0e44e7dcd242a80781.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190716050555.GA1439@paquier.xyz>
References: <20190710142421.GA28387@alvherre.pgsql>
<54779de5-f922-c0cf-629d-b582eded7265@redhat.com>
<20190716050555.GA1439@paquier.xyz>
On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 14:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> How about
> >> Note that while WAL will be flushed with this setting,
> >> <application>pg_receivewal</application> never applies it, so
> >> <xref linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"/> must not be set to
> >> <literal>remote_apply</literal> if <application>pg_receivewal</application>
> >> is the only synchronous standby.
>
> This is not true in all cases as since 9.6 it is possible to specify
> multiple synchronous standbys. So if for example pg_receivewal and
> another synchronous standby are set in s_s_names and that the number
> of a FIRST (priority-based) or ANY (quorum set) is two, then the same
> issue exists, but this documentation is incorrect. I think that we
> should have a more extensive wording here, like "if pg_receivewal is
> part of a quorum-based or priority-based set of synchronous standbys."
I think this would be overly complicated.
The wording above seems to cover the priority-based base sufficiently
in my opinion.
Maybe a second sentence with more detail would be better:
... must not be set to <literal>remote_apply</literal> if
<application>pg_receivewal</application> is the only synchronous standby.
Similarly, if <application>pg_receivewal</application> is part of
a quorum-based set of synchronous standbys, it won't count towards
the quorum if <xref linkend="guc-synchronous-commit"/> is set to
<literal>remote_apply</literal>.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
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: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, michael@paquier.xyz, jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: pg_receivewal documentation
In-Reply-To: <ebed4b9043b222d486ea3f0e44e7dcd242a80781.camel@cybertec.at>
* 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