Re: RecoveryWalAll and RecoveryWalStream wait events
Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik@gmail.com>
From: Atsushi Torikoshi <atorik@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-14T15:06:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2020/02/19 21:46 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>: >> I agree to the former, I think RecoveryWalInterval works well enough. >RecoveryWalInterval sounds confusing to me... IMHO as a user, I prefer RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval because it's easy to understand this wait_event is related to the parameter 'wal_retrieve_retry_interval'. Also from the point of balance, the explanation of RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval is lengthy, but I sometimes feel explanations of wait_events in the manual are so simple that it's hard to understand well. > Waiting when WAL data is not available from any kind of sources > (local, archive or stream) before trying again to retrieve WAL data, I think 'local' means pg_wal here, but the comment on WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable() says checking pg_wal in standby mode is 'not documented', so I'm a little bit worried that users may be confused. Regards, -- Torikoshi Atsushi
Commits
-
Rename the recovery-related wait events.
- 1d253bae57fc 13.0 landed
-
Correct the descriptions of recovery-related wait events in docs.
- f4efb46d2230 10.13 landed
- 375aa3fc2cb2 11.8 landed
- 21b1cb6a786e 12.3 landed
- dbe0d9892c33 13.0 landed