Hi,
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 10:12:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:04:44AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Perhaps there's a point in backpatching a portion of what's in the
> >> attached patch
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:04:44AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Perhaps there's a point in backpatching a portion of what's in the
>> attached patch (the wait event?), but I am not planning to bother much
>> with the stable bra
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 08:04:44AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Also for sync? sync looks fine as issue_xlog_fsync() is being called in
> XLogWalRcvFlush(), no?
Yes, we're OK for the sync data aggregated in the WAL receiver on
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:35:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While doing some monitoring of a replication setup for a stable
> branch, I have been surprised by the fact that we have never tracked
> WAL statistics for the WAL receiver in pg_stat_wal because we have
> never bo
