On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 8:02 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 8/29/17 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >>> >>> Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml >>> than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest was mostly >>> removing irrelevant hunks. >> >> + switch to the next WAL segment. On a standby, it is not possible to >> + automatically switch WAL segments, so you may wish to run >> + <function>pg_switch_wal</function> on the primary to perform a manual >> + switch. The reason for the switch is to arrange for >> [...] >> + WAL segments have been archived. If write activity on the primary >> is low, it >> + may be useful to run <function>pg_switch_wal</> on the primary in order >> to >> + trigger an immediate segment switch of the last required WAL >> It seems to me that both portions are wrong. There is no archiving >> wait on standbys for 9.6, and > I think its clearly stated here that pg_stop_backup() does not wait for > WAL to archive on a standby. Even, it is very important for the backup > routine to make sure that all the WAL *is* archived.
Yes, it seems that I somewhat missed the "on the primary portion" during the first read of the patch. >> pg_stop_backup triggers by itself the >> segment switch, so saying that enforcing pg_switch_wal on the primary >> is moot. > > pg_stop_backup() does not perform a WAL switch on the standby which is > what this sentence is referring to. I have separated this section out > into a new paragraph to (hopefully) make it clearer. > >> pg_switch_xlog has been renamed to pg_switch_wal in PG10, so >> the former name applies. > > Whoops! > > New patch is attached. Thanks for the new version. This looks fine to me. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers