On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup > >> has been introduced in PostgreSQL 10 we can choose whether wait for > >> archiving. But my colleagues found that we can do pg_stop_backup with > >> wait_for_archive = true on the standby server but it actually doesn't > >> wait for WAL archiving. Because this behavior is not documented and we > >> cannot find out it without reading source code it will confuse the > >> user. > >> > >> I think we can raise an error when pg_stop_backup with > >> wait_for_archive = true is executed on the standby. Attached patch > >> change it so that. > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to make it *work*? If you have > archive_mode=always, it > > makes sense to want to wait on the standby as well, does it not? > > > > Yes, ideally it will be better to make it wait for WAL archiving on > standby server when archive_mode=always. But I think it would be for > PG11 item, and this item is for PG10. > > I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation for 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work on a fix I think we should commit it. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
